Nov 1st, 2009 at 5:29 pm
White Men Are Not Very Progressive
A nice map from dreaminonempty at Open Left illustrates the vote share won among white men in the 2008 presidential election:
The take home message: expanding voting rights – a progressive position – resulted in the ability to elect more liberal politicians.
I would say that another message is that progressive politics is badly disadvantaged by a situation in which the overwhelming majorities of political leaders and prominent media figures are white men. There are plenty of white men with progressive views, but in general the majority of white men are not progressive and the majority of progressives are not white men. Drawing from the relatively small pool of white male progressives means drawing from a shallow talent pool.
139 Responses to “White Men Are Not Very Progressive”
Register
RSSLogin
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Books By Matthew Yglesias
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Abortion
Afghanistan
Africa
Basketball
Budget
China
climate
Congress
Crime
DC
Defense Budget
Demographics
Economics
Economy
Energy
EU
Finance
Gender
Health Care
History
Inequality
International Law
International Relations
Iran
Israel
Media
Monetary Policy
National Security
NBA
Pakistan
Palestine
planning
Political Reform
Public Health
Public Opinion
Race
Regulation
Sarah Palin
Science
Sports
Stimulus
taxes
Technology
Trade
transportation
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Contact Matthew Yglesias
Use this form to contact blog author Matthew Yglesias.
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
November 1st, 2009 at 5:44 pm
They look in the mirror – oh, I have a penis! and my skin is pale! I can’t be very pwogwessive! Must vote against Obama!
November 1st, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Not to be a map asshole, but this is not a “nice map.” 1st off, it has twelve divisions, while the human eye has a hard time sorting out more than 7-8 divisions. 2nd, of those twelve divisions six of them are a shade of purple, but the classes represented by the purples aren’t even contiguous, some are at the low end while some others are in the middle. On top of which the blue that is representing Hawaii isn’t even in the legend. I know your point wasn’t about the map, but this map is a POS.
November 1st, 2009 at 5:55 pm
B is right. A very poor color scheme. Is there any order to the colors?
November 1st, 2009 at 5:56 pm
Yeah, try being a liberal white Gen-X female living in the south…
Actually, they look in the mirror and see tremendous character & accomplishment instead of institutionalized privilege, and are deeply offended by anyone or anything that challenges that very comfortable view of themselves.
November 1st, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Voters are more willing to vote for male than female progressives.
If you look at the 2006 house races, white male democratic challengers did much better than women. For example, in CT the two white male challengers beat two GOP incumbents, but the female challenger lost, despite her district being the most liberal of the three. Two years later, a white male challenger won the district. Besides Dianne Ferrell, other well-funded 2006 disappointments in competitive districts were:
Darcy Burner,
Mary Jo Kilroy,
Tammy Duckworth,
Ellen Simon,
Patty Madrid,
Linda Stender,
Francine Busby
Christine Jennings
Jill Derby.
Likewise, virtually every single big upset, where a Dem won a district that was viewed as very tough given the PVI, was a white male. Examples of surprise male winners in 2006 are
Tim Waltz,
Health Schuler,
Harry Mitchel,
Jon Yarmouth,
David Loebsack
Zack Space
John Hall
Jason Altmire.
All beat incumbents in fairly tough Republicanish districts.
If someone can come up with some counterexamples of a female dem beating a male house GOP incumbent. I’d love to hear. I think there were only two in 2006 and zero in 2008. The two in 2006 were Nancy Boyda, who barely won in 2006 and then lost in 2008, and Carol Shea-Porter, who won as part of a huge statewide sweep by a less impressive margin than Paul Hodes.
November 1st, 2009 at 6:03 pm
What B and cube said. The colouring on that map, although very pretty in a graphic-design sense, makes it about as hard as possible to extract the information.
On behalf of Mr. Tufte, I’d suggest that all geographic-intensity maps should be in greyscale, or else in tints and tones of a single hue.
November 1st, 2009 at 6:06 pm
I’d be interested to know the proportion of people who describe themselves as liberals who are white males.
November 1st, 2009 at 6:07 pm
Drawing from the relatively small pool of white male progressives means drawing from a shallow talent pool.
This is ridiculous. Obviously white men are overrepreented virtually everywhere in American public life, and it’d be good if there were more diversity, but it’s silly to say that liberal white men are a “shallow talent pool”. 15% of the total electorate were white men who voted for Obama. That’s millions of people. And what are the grounds for saying that “political talent” is some sort of zero-sum commodity of which there is only a fixed amount? Talented political leaders aren’t like NBA centers.
November 1st, 2009 at 6:16 pm
deeply offended by anyone or anything that challenges that very comfortable view of themselves
And that’s the Yglesias-style pwogwessives who challenge this comfortable view? What, by forcing you to celebrate Kwanzaa or something?
November 1st, 2009 at 6:16 pm
love to see how this plays out limiting the sample to straight, non-Jewish white men
November 1st, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Nice post, and I’m surprised Matt didn’t point this out. Jewish white men and gay white men because of their religion and/or sexuality have some sympathy for other minority groups.
November 1st, 2009 at 6:23 pm
Also LOL at this:
While straight, non-jew white men vote mostly republicans they still outnumber many groups that vote democrat (Jews, Gays, Muslims)
November 1st, 2009 at 6:24 pm
Everybody knows it, but nobody is allowed to say it.
Now we get to hear the chorus of “reverse racism” whining from white folks and southerners.
November 1st, 2009 at 6:24 pm
boy, am i glad i live in vermont
November 1st, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Oh – and correlate it with the well-known slave state/territory map from before the Civil War.
http://sensoryoverload.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/then_map_2.jpg
Lastly: Tell me without cracking a smile that it’s just a coincidence.
November 1st, 2009 at 6:34 pm
[...] Yglesias says: White Men Are Not Very Progressive: I would say that another message is that progressive politics is badly disadvantaged by a [...]
November 1st, 2009 at 6:35 pm
yeah, ridiculous indeed. in fact, among the intelligent and well educated white men liberals are at a slight advantage in numbers to conservatives:
http://secularright.org/wordpress/?p=3157
November 1st, 2009 at 6:36 pm
Voting for Obama was progressive? Who knew?
November 1st, 2009 at 6:37 pm
Yeah, it makes little sense having the spectrum move from blue to purple, with something else in the middle.
November 1st, 2009 at 6:40 pm
It should be pointed out that the conservatism of white males is a fairly recent phenomenon. Before the 1960s women were generally more conservative than men.
November 1st, 2009 at 6:42 pm
Health Schuler, [sic]
Heath Shuler’s victory wasn’t a surprise or that much of an upset.
November 1st, 2009 at 6:45 pm
If someone can come up with some counterexamples of a female dem beating a male house GOP incumbent. I’d love to hear…
Other than Boyda and Shea-Porter, in 2008 there was Kathy Dahlkemper over Phil English in Pennsylvania and Suzanne Kosmas over Tom Feeney in Florida, although Feeney immolated his political career by preemptively airing ads about his own ties to Jack Abramoff (to the extent that I forgot that he was an incumbent before doublechecking that Dahlkemper was the only one).
November 1st, 2009 at 6:51 pm
Just curious. Did the black vote in Mississippi and Alabama break out at 50-50 between McCain and Obama?
November 1st, 2009 at 6:57 pm
I often have problems discerning colors that are too-similar when used on maps – but have absolutely no problem with this map. Each color looks easily distinct to me. Strange.
November 1st, 2009 at 6:58 pm
“Not to be a map asshole, but this is not a “nice map”
It’s an awful color scheme, but it’s actually one of the more interesting 2008 map breakdowns I’ve seen.
November 1st, 2009 at 7:00 pm
The colors are distinct, but the gradations make no sense. Why is “light purple” more intense than dark brown?
November 1st, 2009 at 7:01 pm
“I often have problems discerning colors that are too-similar when used on maps – but have absolutely no problem with this map. Each color looks easily distinct to me. Strange.”
Blue correlates in with both high and low numbers in a way that results in clumsiness in the mind of the viewer.
There is no anchor in this map’s color wheel.
November 1st, 2009 at 7:01 pm
Your interpretation of the map is faulty. Yes, it is very striking and interesting. This map in no way demonstrates anything whatever about “progressives” and their gender and race. You misrepresent voting patterns as equaling a political position that you happen to like. It may be true that the proportion of progressives among white men is lower than in other groups, but this map does not demonstrate that, at all.
Actually, less than 20% of adults identify themselves as “liberal” or “progressive.” I imagine that there is a gender/racial/geographic breakdown in the General Social Survey or some such. You should use that data for your map instead, it actually asked the question of interest.
November 1st, 2009 at 7:06 pm
Excuse me. Did it ever occur to Mr. Yglesias that perhaps the reason there are more men than women in politics might be because women tend to have temperaments and modes of moral reasoning (relational and personal instead of abstract) that lead them to be less interested in political office than men. Neither male nor female modes of moral reasoning are ‘better’ than the other, but one tends to lend itself more to the exercise of political power than the other.
Of course I doubt that occurs to Mr. Yglesias. Because he has something better than reason, he has third wave feminist dogma, which tells him that if there is any profession having more men than women, it must be because of the evil reactionary Christofascists.
November 1st, 2009 at 7:06 pm
Steve, thanks for pointing the two Dem women who beat GOP house incumbents in 2008.
I don’t mean to imply there are no good female condidates, just that there are not very many. Dahlkemper’s win was impressive given how much she was outspent, though the district itself went for Obama in 2008, and being in suburban Philadelphia was increasingly unsafe. Boyda’s win in 2006 was also very impressive and that she almost held on 2008 was still remarkable.
Nonetheless here are the total figures:
2006: 20 democrats beat GOP house incumbents in 2006 – 18/men 2/women. 2008: 13/men 2/women.
November 1st, 2009 at 7:12 pm
So basically women do well in gerrymandered Dem districts, where women typically make up a large majority of Dem primary voters.
But the 35 Republicans beat for reelection in 2006/2008, only 4 were women. The current House Democratic majority is a result of strong white male candidates beating Republican incumbents.
Bottom line: Matt’s point that white males are “shallow talent pool” for Democrats is just plain wrong. I would say the biggest reason for this is that white male candidates are simply more reassuring presences on TV.
November 1st, 2009 at 7:17 pm
In the opinion of many progressives/liberals and others, Obama is not a progressive or liberal. So the premise of this post is based on a highly contested assertion. The data show only what they show, and there is no basis to assume white men voted for Obama based on their affinity with the progressive label. Nowhere in these data is it shown what the reasons were that white men did or did not vote for Obama.
Criticizing the color scheme is a nit in comparison.
November 1st, 2009 at 7:19 pm
Oh – and correlate it with the well-known slave state/territory map from before the Civil War.
Yeah, that’s the first thing I noticed when I saw that map “hmmm, looks like the deep South’s men are traditional conservatives, no duh”.
Another fun map as a point of contrast:
http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/museum/exhibits/elections/images/1964-map.gif
November 1st, 2009 at 7:22 pm
[...] Matt Yglesias produces a map (from Open Left) showing how Republican white men are and writes, smartly: [...]
November 1st, 2009 at 7:24 pm
@11 – I don’t believe gay white men were particularly less likely than straight white men to vote for McCain. Remember, gay voters shifted +6 to McCain (from 2004) while voters in general shifted +5 to Obama. Exit polls put overall gay support at 27% for McCain, but the ’shy Tory’ issue likely pops up, and right-wing gay men like Larry Craig are counted among the straights.
California, Florida, Illinois, New York and Washington average out to around 50% Obama among white men. I wouldn’t be surprised if McCain got 40% of the GWM vote there.
November 1st, 2009 at 7:28 pm
Hector Says:
November 1st, 2009 at 7:06 pm
Excuse me. Did it ever occur to Mr. Yglesias that perhaps the reason there are more men than women in politics might be because women tend to have temperaments and modes of moral reasoning (relational and personal instead of abstract) that lead them to be less interested in political office than men. Neither male nor female modes of moral reasoning are ‘better’ than the other, but one tends to lend itself more to the exercise of political power than the other.
Of course I doubt that occurs to Mr. Yglesias. Because he has something better than reason, he has third wave feminist dogma, which tells him that if there is any profession having more men than women, it must be because of the evil reactionary Christofascists.
It doesn’t occur to Matt because it, like you, is stupid and crazy.
November 1st, 2009 at 7:36 pm
Openleft is unavailable right now, but I don’t get the supposed 51 EV if only white men voted; this map gives CA to Obama, so that’s 55 right there, plus a few other states that bring it to 92. (Or 96 if we count Hawaii, which as others have pointed out isn’t even a valid color on the map.) Unless I don’t understand the whole thing.
November 1st, 2009 at 7:38 pm
That makes total sense. MY, you are right – except for the shallow pool thing. The problem isn’t the shallow pool, it is that white male Dems are probably going to be moved by white male causes that are really not the causes of the base. They will find the villagers – the Broderati – credible simply because the culture skews their impressions. Whereas almost any other sentient being on the planet finds them ridiculous.
November 1st, 2009 at 7:47 pm
Did it ever occur to Mr. Yglesias that perhaps the reason there are more men than women in politics might be because women tend to have temperaments and modes of moral reasoning (relational and personal instead of abstract) that lead them to be less interested in political office than men.
I don’t know about that. I’ve always thought that less women than men were prominent in politics because 1) both personal desires and societal expectations cause them to put a higher priority on family, causing them to make life and career choices that relatively (though not totally) incompatible with politics; and 2) women who act like typical politicians are much less likely to be viewed favorably by voters and the public (other females just as likely as men) than men who act the same way.
Using my law school class as an example, we had plenty of women who would have made capable leaders, politicians, etc., but a lot of them have already made choices that make such career paths unlikely. Indeed, some characteristics typically attributed to women (better multi-taskers, better emotional intelligence and relational reasoning) you could see being advantages in politics.
November 1st, 2009 at 8:01 pm
I suppose if we’re imagining a world where only white men can vote, then presumably only white men could run for President, too. In that case, the race would’ve been, what, Edwards/Biden vs. McCain/Romney? Yikes!
November 1st, 2009 at 8:11 pm
Israeli forces storm into holiest place on earth:
http://joshfulton.blogspot.com/2009/10/israeli-police-storm-jerusalems-holiest.html
November 1st, 2009 at 8:12 pm
Republicans have the advantage of drawing white males from a far larger talent pool which is why the Republican nomination was contested by luminaries John McCain Mike Huckabee Rudy Giuliani Mitt Romney Sam Brownback Tom Tancredo Jim Gilmore* Duncan Hunter Ron Paul and Tommy Thompson.
November 1st, 2009 at 8:26 pm
How many “prominent media figures” belong to the subset Jewish white men? If that talent pool is lopsided, its in the progressives’ favor.
November 1st, 2009 at 8:26 pm
What a cool post thanks for sharing.
November 1st, 2009 at 8:30 pm
sherifffruitfly Says:
“.. Now we get to hear the chorus of “reverse racism” whining from white folks and southerners”
>> There is no such thing as “reverse racism” Fruitfly. (Although you did tag it). Racism has come to mean racism by Whites on non Whites. Black on Brown is ethnic unrest or some such malarkey. Black racism against Whites is racism. Period.
November 1st, 2009 at 8:40 pm
There is no such thing as “reverse racism” Fruitfly. (Although you did tag it). Racism has come to mean racism by Whites on non Whites. Black on Brown is ethnic unrest or some such malarkey. Black racism against Whites is racism. Period.
Not these whites-are-the-real-victims-of-racism assholes again.
November 1st, 2009 at 8:45 pm
i wonder if white male liberal pundits aren’t as good as white male conservative pundits because of the limited sample?
November 1st, 2009 at 8:45 pm
Is not being “progressive” an insult? It all depends on your idea of progress.
You can take your change and leave me here with mine.
November 1st, 2009 at 8:57 pm
A different way to look at the data is what will happen to politics when there are not enough white male voters to affect the political process. Will black and Hispanic Democrats be as interested in appealing to whites and white progressives have been in appealing to blacks and Hispanics.
Of course, I wonder if Matt would be as interested in the over representation of Jews in those white Democrats.
November 1st, 2009 at 9:11 pm
Democrats be as interested in appealing to whites and white progressives have been in appealing to blacks and Hispanics.
We know, black people scare you.
November 1st, 2009 at 9:12 pm
Whatever this map says, the one thing we know for sure is that it’s going to change over the course of the next decade.
If it’s “survival of the fittest”, then white males must not be very fit because they’re going to be outnumbered, badly.
But really, I think it’s all a matter of marketing, media, and the big candy cane of credit. As long as their credit cards still work, it’s easy to be a Republican. I see the recent “Tea Party” movement as an evolutionary step toward progressivism. Right now, the teabaggers’ anger just happens to be misdirected. But it wouldn’t take much to turn these angry white folk into angry leftists. Actually, job loss seems to do a very good job of transformation.
If you can get them to sit down and watch it, you’d be surprised by the reaction of teabaggers to Michael Moore’s new movie about capitalism. If it wasn’t for Moore’s iconic figure as narrator, it would play even better with them.
November 1st, 2009 at 9:14 pm
2nd, of those twelve divisions six of them are a shade of purple, but the classes represented by the purples aren’t even contiguous, some are at the low end while some others are in the middle.
It looks to me like the only three purplish colors are all continguous from a low of five to a high of 19 percent. Am I reading it wrong?
November 1st, 2009 at 9:23 pm
I guess Jews don’t really count as “white” then.
November 1st, 2009 at 9:35 pm
Context is in order. Obama got more white support than any Democrat since Jimmy Carter. Not bad for a black dude.
November 1st, 2009 at 9:45 pm
women tend to have temperaments and modes of moral reasoning (relational and personal instead of abstract)
Shove that stereotype up your ass, okay?
November 1st, 2009 at 10:01 pm
women tend to have temperaments and modes of moral reasoning (relational and personal instead of abstract)
Shove that stereotype up your ass, okay?
You may be new here, but Hector is the absolute worst (well, except for some of the other assholes who hang out here). He’ll be back to defend his horseshit. Get ready for a disquisition on “natural law” and his fantasies of wihpping in the Andes.
Seriously.
November 1st, 2009 at 10:07 pm
Here’s another of Hector’s recent gems, from another thread:
If a woman is a wh*re, then I have every intention of calling her a wh*re. That goes for anyone who literally peddles s*x for money, as well as anyone who peddles their talents, labor or opinions. It is a shameful thing to do, and we ought to use shameful words for it, not resort to feel-good intellectual fluff designed to not hurt anyone’s feelings.
November 1st, 2009 at 10:07 pm
I’d love to see a Latina primary Obama in 2012.
November 1st, 2009 at 10:46 pm
You are one crazy little loser baby.
November 1st, 2009 at 11:02 pm
Another vote for this map’s color scheme choices blowing goats.
November 1st, 2009 at 11:15 pm
Re: I don’t know about that. I’ve always thought that less women than men were prominent in politics because 1) both personal desires and societal expectations cause them to put a higher priority on family, causing them to make life and career choices that relatively (though not totally) incompatible with politics
Hugo,
As usual, you have a good point. That’s a big part of it too (though I suspect placing a higher priority on family has more to do with innate tendencies than by societal expectations).
Another way to put what I said, borrowing from Tolstoy, is that you have to be something of a callous @$$hole to succeed in American politics, and women are less likely then men to be @$$holes.
Of course, the Yglesian peanut gallery becomes deeply uncomfortable when they think about the fact that men and women may be deeply and essentially different, and this gender is not a ’social construction’ or whatever the third wave feminist idiots drunk on Foucault are babbling about these days. However, the world is not set up to make Yglesian yahoos comfortable.
November 1st, 2009 at 11:25 pm
Of course, the Yglesian peanut gallery becomes deeply uncomfortable when they think about the fact that men and women may be deeply and essentially different, and this gender is not a ’social construction’ or whatever the third wave feminist idiots drunk on Foucault are babbling about these days. However, the world is not set up to make Yglesian yahoos comfortable.
We don’t become uncomfortable, we think you’re an idiot. And since we don’t believe that anything goes, I’m-ok-you’re-ok, (another one of the things you think is true if you repeat it every chance you get) we don’t mind telling you so.
Back to my pot, porn and playstations. Excuse me p*rn.
And by the way, Hector, anyone who uses the word “pussified” to deride men can’t really claim that a) he respects women or b) he’s not saying that either gender’s “natural instincts” are better than the other’s.
You’re really a disgusting piece of work.
November 1st, 2009 at 11:44 pm
Re: And by the way, Hector, anyone who uses the word “pussified” to deride men
That’s fair, I’ll abstain from using it in future (and have tried to stop using it in the last couple months, actually). What’s a good synonym- cowardly? Because you people certainly are that.
Re: he’s not saying that either gender’s “natural instincts” are better than the other’s.
Well, if anything, I think generally women’s natural instincts are better than men. They’re less likely to be promiscuous, less likely to be reckless, less likely to be devoted to abstract ideals at the cost of personal relationships, and less likely to be materialistic. Unfortunately, none of those things set you up well for success in American politics.
November 1st, 2009 at 11:49 pm
I think generally women’s natural instincts…
Actually, I’d say that living in your fairy-tale world where everything is neatly divided by “nature” is much more cowardly than living with us in the messy real world.
November 1st, 2009 at 11:52 pm
The title of this post is racist and offensive. You’re not showing very much tolerance and respect for diversity. You’re not very progressive! It applies to everyone, not just a select few!
For Hector:
http://www.womensinfidelity.com/
November 1st, 2009 at 11:54 pm
The title of this post is racist and offensive.
The writer of that sentence is an idiot.
November 1st, 2009 at 11:58 pm
I am a liberal white male, one of those from the “shallow talent pool.” Has it occurred to the author that the liberals might be more talented than average? Obviously, of course, it’s a depleted talent pool. But we are not shallow.
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:01 am
Tammy,
From “The State of Affairs: Explorations in Infidelity and Commitment.” Duncombe, J. and Duck, Steven. Routledge, 2004.
“Virtually all available research indicates that men are more open to extradyadic sex than women. Indeed, men more often fantasize about extradyadic sex, are more willing to engage in extradyadic sex, and do actually more often engage in extradyadic sex. Although there is a large variety across cultures in the occurence of extradyadic sex, in all cultures men are more unfaithful than women. For example, in Guinea-Bissau, 38% of the men and 19% of the women had had extradyadic sex in the past year, and in Hong Kong 8% of the men and 1% of the women did (Carael, Cleland, Deheneffe, Ferry and Ingham, 1995.)”
This study finds similar results (about 33% higher rates of infidelity among men) among young people in Norway:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/416k61h463210m51/
“The purpose of this research was to study the occurrence of extradyadic sexual relationships among Norwegians. We examined what background factors were associated with this type of relationship, and to what extent condoms were used. In 2002, a random sample of 9,852 Norwegians between the ages of 18 and 49 were asked to participate in an anonymous self-administered questionnaire survey on sexual behavior. A total of 3387 persons responded (1386 men, 1993 women, and 8 who did not indicate their gender), yielding a response rate of 34%. Of the 2807 participants who had ever been married or cohabited, 29% of the men and 23% of the women reported experience with extradyadic sexual relationships at some point during their lives. Sixteen percent of the men and 11% of the women reported extradyadic sex during their current marriage/cohabiting relationship. Women were more emotionally attached to the extradyadic partner than men. Factors that predicted occurrence of extradyadic sexual relationships were age, number of years married/cohabiting, number of sex partners, and sexual orientation. In addition, there was a correlation between low self-esteem and extradyadic sexual experience. About 50% of the participants reported no use of contraception during the most recent intercourse with an extradyadic partner. In conclusion, men’s extradyadic partner seems most often to be a casual partner, whereas women prefer someone they already know. The choice of extradyadic partner is most likely associated with use of STI protection.”
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:05 am
That said, I’m as frustrated as anyone with the attitudes of many white males as well as white females. But it won’t help to demonize us as a class. I prefer to focus on the positive: the extraordinary contributions of nonwhite and immigrant populations in a country that was at one time overwhelmingly white. Even now it seems to me that new immigrants are often living more constructive life than many of us natives.
I am particularly disturbed (not to mention disgusted) by the prevalence of some sort of American exceptionalism. But that it based on nationality rather than color or ethnicity, at least in theory.
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:19 am
[...] post is from here. Visit the link to read more.@11 – I don’t believe gay white men were particularly less [...]
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:25 am
[...] post is from here. Visit the link to read more.@11 – I don’t believe gay white men were particularly less [...]
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:59 am
[...] post is from here. Visit the link to read more.@11 – I don’t believe gay white men were particularly less [...]
November 2nd, 2009 at 1:13 am
Obama has a problem with Appalachian whites! But he wins over the latte-sippers in Virginia!
Except he did better among whites in West Virginia than Virginia.
November 2nd, 2009 at 1:32 am
On the contrary, doesn’t this tell you that for progressive politicians to win they’d better be white men? Other groups are predisposed to vote for more liberal candidates as it is.
November 2nd, 2009 at 1:35 am
less likely to be devoted to abstract ideals at the cost of personal relationships
rot and slander
I agree with anonnnnnnn, put your sophomoric, Carol-Gilligan-inspired, 1980s, “difference-feminist” aspersions where the sun don’t shine
November 2nd, 2009 at 1:43 am
I’m a white male and I voted for Obama. I feel like an endangered species… that is an amazing chart.
November 2nd, 2009 at 2:32 am
[...] Matt, who got it from Openleft, at a link which is currently dead but which I hope will revive. Matt [...]
November 2nd, 2009 at 4:39 am
I’m a white male and I voted for Obama.
I’m guessing you probably have some African genes and they made you do it. Or you’re a cross-gender person, woman trapped in a man’s body.
Really, what other rational explanation can there be?
November 2nd, 2009 at 7:49 am
Oh, no!
We’ll have to count on (gasp) WOMEN! and assorted minority men. Talk about your “shallow talent pool”.
November 2nd, 2009 at 7:58 am
I’m a free white male over twenty-one. I was greatly disappointed in my choices last election. Actualy I would have voted for Hillary Clinton over both the two men that ran. And I did feel it was meaningful that we could elect an African American president. Too bad we didn’t have the most qualified black or white to choose from. And it’s possibly a bit of a burdon on our current president that we have absolutely the worse collection of Congressional lawmakers in office than we could have imagined. That’s what we have to fix – now.
November 2nd, 2009 at 8:01 am
Do we have a chart illustrating how African Americans voted. That might be equally revealing.
November 2nd, 2009 at 8:55 am
People need to understand that the Left is primarily made up of people of color. Moreover, look at the Congressional Progressive Caucus. It’s primarily made up of people of color and women. There are few white men in that caucus.
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:18 am
I’d imagine most of the white men in question, particularly in the south, would vote Republican regardless. More telling may be to compare to a 2000 or 2004 map, or limit the map to Independents.
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:25 am
[...] Matthew Yglesias looking mournfully, or maybe more accusatorily at this electoral map. Sounds like a vast swath of [...]
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:50 am
I have one question for you. How does one “progress” from protecting and guaranteeing the individual’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
On the occasion of the 150th Anniversary in 1926 of the Declaration of Independence, President Calvin Coolidge gave a speech in which he said the following:
We “white men” do not object to “progress”. No, we object to the falsely labeled “progressivism” that is in reality thinly veiled attacks on the individual’s inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:56 am
RE: put your sophomoric, Carol-Gilligan-inspired, 1980s, “difference-feminist” aspersions where the sun don’t shine
Good catch! I am heavily influenced by Carol Gilligan, it’s good of you to notice that.
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:59 am
perhaps the reason there are more men than women in politics might be because women tend to have temperaments and modes of moral reasoning (relational and personal instead of abstract) that lead them to be less interested in political office than men.
That doesn’t even make sense on its own terms. Let’s suppose arguendo that it’s true – politics is all about relational and personal issues! It’s all dealmaking, coalition-building, speaking, persuading, advocating, bargaining…
Hector’s supposition, if true, would predict that there would be very few female philosophy professors, or theologians, or maybe even mathematicians, but if anything it implies that politics should be dominated by women. He’s got this image of politicians as Platonic philosopher-kings that’s just completely divorced from how politics actually happens.
November 2nd, 2009 at 10:18 am
Here is a more easily interpreted version of the map – http://shrinkd.com/images/whitemenre.gif – lighter colours = less votes for Obama, darker colours = more votes for Obama (don’t read anything into that, I just did a grayscale conversion based on voting percentages).
As pointed out earlier, the blue in Hawaii is not even in the legend, I’m assuming it is > 64% but I don’t know so it remains the same blue.
November 2nd, 2009 at 10:22 am
Re: Hector’s supposition, if true, would predict that there would be very few female philosophy professors, or theologians, or maybe even mathematicians
Wrong, it doesn’t imply anything of the sort. I didn’t say that female modes of _intellectual_ reasoning are more relational (I doubt they are), I said their modes of _moral_ reasoning focus more on harms and benefits done to specific people rather then on abstract goals like “Freedom”, “Socialism” or “Progress”. That’s a _good_ thing (one of the ills our last century suffered from is a willingness to sacrifice people in the hear and now to abstract ideals) but it also means that I would suspect fewer women want to go into a profession, American politics, where they are forced to corrupt their integrity and morals every day.
Women also tend to be more religious than men, so if anything more of them should be theologicans then men.
November 2nd, 2009 at 10:24 am
This is the exact same map one would come up with for degrees of left- and right-wingism. Quit you’re racism, Matt, it is bad for your credibility.
November 2nd, 2009 at 10:37 am
Bob Says:
November 1st, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Voters are more willing to vote for male than female progressives.
Actually, no, not really. I’m not familiar with the races you mention, but I’m pretty sure most of the difference you describe, overall if not in 2006 specifically, is better explained by something else: fewer women run for office. Why? Because they don’t get groomed and recruited and talked into it.
When women run for office, on average they get about as many votes as a hypothetical man with the same funding, partisan advantage and policies. But fewer women run. They don’t have the time, they don’t have a spouse with nothing better to do but be supportive, people don’t think of it as being the natural “next step” of their careers, and so on.
And not to single out Bob but more generally, almost all of you are a bunch of idiots, and even Al’s wit is too good for you. For trolling, for taking the trolls seriously, for being Hector, for not seeing the forest for the trees when reading his comments… Hector, of all the behaviors you’re calling “natural instincts”, are any of them not learned?
November 2nd, 2009 at 10:42 am
Oh my God. A majority of white men are really as bad as Homer Simpson and Peter Griffin–and Elmer Fudd.
Good thing I did not see this on Halloween. Too scary to contemplate…
November 2nd, 2009 at 10:42 am
How odd… the same folks here who are celebrating valid racial stereotypes (in values and voting behavior) are shouting down valid gender stereotypes (in moral and political style). That’s some serious mindshear! Ouch, just from reading it…
(Lest you lump me in with Hector… he’d do well to say only what’s true, then stop. It’s the latter two thirds of his posts that go off into the weeds in such a sad way.)
BTW, Tufte would so kick somebody’s ass over those map color choices.
November 2nd, 2009 at 10:52 am
Hawaii has fewer white men proportionately than any other state.
November 2nd, 2009 at 10:52 am
Yeah, now weman has become more strong and more smart,and they have done bussiness better than men at some field. Man including white man ,i think, is also become strong than before, but wowen has more better than men as they has charactor. So it seem man belcome weak. indeed,it’s not,i think, weman are more strong, that have taken place men in more field.
you can find china cheap wholesale electronics, more are for women,because they have job but have less pressure than man,so it have fee to buy it.
Like women phone is :http://www.edigitalwholesale.com/G2—M98-Dual-SIM-Card-Phone-With-Java—TV-Unlocked-White_p1381.html
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:21 am
The message would hit even harder with an additional geographic dimension: Urban vs Rural. If these same data were mapped at the county level the result would be pretty shocking, though a bit misleading. Huge areas that are mountains, deserts or grain fields would be purple. In my home state, Los Angeles and San Francisco would be cyan blue and the rest of the state brown to red.
November 2nd, 2009 at 10:56 am
True American wrote,
Huh?
So-called “progressives” are defenders of liberty.
The main enemies of liberty in the US today are:
(1) Social conservatives, and
(2) Right-wing libertarians, who are actually crypto-feudalists who despise liberty
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:09 am
also they cant jump
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:12 am
As far as Ted Danson and Whoopie are concerned, White men can’t see either. What a collection of losers!
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:24 am
This is ridiculous. Obviously white men are overrepreented virtually everywhere in American public life, and it’d be good if there were more diversity, but it’s silly to say that liberal white men are a “shallow talent pool”. 15% of the total electorate were white men who voted for Obama. That’s millions of people.
Some impassioned points, here. Too bad your argument is entirely undercut by the mere existence of Lanny Davis.
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:45 am
[...] “everyone knows” reasoning and a pathological need to cling to reassuring nostrums, in spite of the available evidence, has overrun the last vestiges of good sense and sound [...]
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:03 pm
Hector @61: the Yglesian peanut gallery becomes deeply uncomfortable when they think about the fact that men and women may be deeply and essentially different, and this gender is not a ’social construction’…
Is this really that hard? For any personality or character attribute, an individual man or woman will be some distance from the mean of their sex. The means for many attributes will be significantly different. In some cases, this is largely due to biology, in some cases, upbringing and culture, and in other cases, a combination. But we’re talking here about means of populations, not individuals.
Some women are more ambitious than the average man. Some men are more sensitive than the average woman. Are these men and women betraying their essential manliness and womanliness? No, that’s a silly and counterproductive way of looking at the world that posits an essentiality to manliness and womanliness that lacks evidential support.
Both Hector and the (caricatures of) third-wave feminist dogmatists he derides are making the same mistake. Hector sees the differences in means between populations and makes the unfounded move of imputing the difference to a difference between an essence present in each member of one of the populations and a different essence present in each member of the other population. The (caricatures of) third-wave feminists have equally unscientific thinking and so they deny the evidence of differences between population means so that they can avoid the conclusion of essential, individual-level differences.
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:07 pm
True American,
Dude, I’m pretty much 100% fucking white. And you know what bugs me?
The taxes I’m paying in New York to subsidize your broke, crystal meth addicted, racist ass in the South and West.
Why not, instead of whining about how people are trying to take away your freedom when our collective ethnic groups make up not merely the majority, but the vast majority of the United States, you put down the Palin picture you’re jacking off to, and explain to me why I am taxed up the ass for you.
Because you know what? I don’t mind helping out poor kids in the Bronx; I grew up with some of them.
I do mind paying tithes to a bunch of slaveocrat rebels my maternal ancestors proudly beat the bloody shit out of from 61 to 65.
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:23 pm
liberal wrote,
How about providing examples?
November 2nd, 2009 at 1:01 pm
I am a Southern(from Alabama) “white” male. I put the white in quotes because though I can qualify for membership in two Native American Tribes most people would see me as white.
I voted for the President, not because I am progressive, which I think is as valuable a term as organic, but because I could not bring my self to vote for McCain. If the republicans run a more moderate candidate in the next election I will consider voting for them. Assuming someone voted for the President because they are Progressive is highly suspect.
Self Identified Progressives and Conservatives are drinking the same Kool Aid out of different fountains.
November 2nd, 2009 at 2:01 pm
Bob, for a dem woman beating a (white, male) Republican incumbent in a heavily R PVI house district, what about Kirsten Gillibrand in upstate NY in ‘06? Although Gillibrand is far from progressive (being more a blue doggie type), she’s definitely female.
November 2nd, 2009 at 2:14 pm
I do mind paying tithes to a bunch of slaveocrat rebels my maternal ancestors proudly beat the bloody shit out of from 61 to 65.
WOW WOW WOW~~~ You are not very educated are you Greg. New York was the last state to end slavery. The very last. The reason why is because there were more slaves in New York than anywhere else in North America. Get a grip and learn some history before you spout that which you know nothing of. Also Racism against whites is very real and is perpetrated everyday in every big city in this nation. 13% of the population does 58% of all the murders in this nation and it is extremely rare that a white man kills anyone other than a white man.
November 2nd, 2009 at 2:24 pm
[...] about this post of mine, Dayo Olopade asked “Where are the black women in [...]
November 2nd, 2009 at 2:26 pm
In practical terms it doesn’t matter whether the differences are “essential” or learned. You draw your politicians from the ranks of the society you have, not the society you might have had. If women are socialized to have certain personality traits that aren’t conducive to success in politics (for instance, not being obsessively career-oriented and hypercompetitively ambitious) then the practical effects are no different than if they had the same traits innately.
November 2nd, 2009 at 2:28 pm
[...] read the linked-to story about white men not being very progressive over the weekend, but leave it to Melissa at Shakesville to articulate one of those [...]
November 2nd, 2009 at 2:29 pm
it is extremely rare that a white man kills anyone other than a white man.
Assuming that you’re not counting white *cops* in this statistic, it’s still not true; white men unfortunately kill quite a lot of white women.
November 2nd, 2009 at 2:33 pm
WOW WOW WOW~~~ You are not very educated are you Greg. New York was the last state to end slavery. The very last. The reason why is because there were more slaves in New York than anywhere else in North America. Get a grip and learn some history before you spout that which you know nothing of. Also Racism against whites is very real and is perpetrated everyday in every big city in this nation. 13% of the population does 58% of all the murders in this nation and it is extremely rare that a white man kills anyone other than a white man.
Such horseshit. Try learning history from books that you can’t buy at Confederate re-enactor conventions.
November 2nd, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Also, it shouldn’t need to be said, but in case anyone takes these neo-Confederates seriously, NY ended slavery before the Civil War and without having to be militarily defeated and occupied first:
http://www.slavenorth.com/nyemancip.htm
I fully anticipate a bevy a posts about how the South seceded because of taxes or “states’ rights” other than the right to keep and expand slavery. And I’ll link to the SC declaration of secession, and the Confederate apologists will come up with some other lie to mask their racism, and on and on.
November 2nd, 2009 at 2:48 pm
The reason why is because there were more slaves in New York than anywhere else in North America.
O shut up:
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/slavery/slave-maps/slave-census.htm
How many slaves do you count in NY?
November 2nd, 2009 at 3:01 pm
[...] also wonder if Yglesias is all that correct with this assessment: I would say that another message is that progressive politics is badly disadvantaged by a [...]
November 2nd, 2009 at 4:07 pm
TA @ 104:
Liberal did provide an example, but you must have missed the link: http://geolib.com/essays/sullivan.dan/royallib.html
Oh, and here’s one from me: http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/mainstreaming-radical-right-conserva
By the way, Lee Atwater explained way back in 1981 how he and his fellow GOP activists recruited guys like you:
November 2nd, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Why the conflation between being “progressive” and voting for Obama? I denied Obama my vote because he wasn’t progressive enough.
November 2nd, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Anthony: My favorite gambit from the Neo-Confederates is when they try to claim, using certain back issues from the Confederate Veteran magazine in 1915, that there were “loyal black slaves” willingly fighting in uniform for the Confederacy. Of course, what they DON’T do is cite the rebuttals that appeared in the following issues of The Confederate Veteran, citing actual records from the Confederate Congress for the last week of March 1865, showing that it was only then that black slaves were authorized to fight alongside white Confederates — a move that came far too late to be implemented.
Why did the Confederates resist this so fiercely, even as a desperately undermanned Robert E. Lee was begging them to allow black men to fight alongside white men? Because to do so would be to admit they were human beings, and make it harder to sustain the cognitive dissonance that slaveholders used to proclaim slavery as a moral institution.
November 2nd, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Why did the Confederates resist this so fiercely, even as a desperately undermanned Robert E. Lee was begging them to allow black men to fight alongside white men? Because to do so would be to admit they were human beings, and make it harder to sustain the cognitive dissonance that slaveholders used to proclaim slavery as a moral institution.
Patrick Cleburne made the suggestion in 64, if I remember correctly, possibly even earlier.
He was nearly killed for doing so, since half the Army of Tennessee wanted to challenge him to a duel.
November 2nd, 2009 at 6:12 pm
*yawn*
Yes, Hector, The World is just the way the voices in your head say it is. Women can’t read maps because their silly girlybrains can’t compute them, men can’t master a vaccuum because it doesn’t move like a sabretoothed tiger, and God Said that’s the Way It Should Be. Happy? Good.
November 2nd, 2009 at 6:32 pm
Progressives teach that white men (or, more specifically, heterosexual Christian white males of non-Latino descent) are inherently racists and are the only group which it is acceptable to discriminate against.
So why is it surprising that most white men don’t buy into your message?
November 2nd, 2009 at 6:44 pm
Progressives teach that white men (or, more specifically, heterosexual Christian white males of non-Latino descent) are inherently racists and are the only group which it is acceptable to discriminate against.
You know, that’s complete bullshit.
I’m every one of those things, and I don’t feel any “white guilt” nor have I ever been “taught” that I’m inherently a racist.
In fact, the only people who ever mention that there’s some kind of inherent racism in the white male are the douchebags who constantly complain that everyone else is ganging up on them. Projection, much? Or do you not even understand what I mean?
I have to ask, because some jackass above tried to claim New York was the worst slave holding state in the country. Where the fuck do you morons come from?
As I said before, malclave, white Christians still represent the overwhelming majority of the US population. We’re on top. Or at least, my family is. If you’re not on top, then it’s probably because you’re either an idiot, a convicted criminal, or you’ve bought hook, line, and sinker the bullshit that they’re selling you about how you’re *totally* going to get rich, even though the deck is pretty much stacked.
And, sorry, mate, but this is not due to some disabled middle aged black lady getting welfare.
You, asshole, do not get to tell me who tells me that I’m a racist.
November 2nd, 2009 at 7:00 pm
Re: We’re on top.
Most white people (including most white men) are not anywhere close to being on top. Only a tiny number of elite (disprortionately but not exclusively white) can claim that honor.
November 2nd, 2009 at 7:29 pm
Fascinating map. And interesting posts. It all, sadly, just reinforces for me how easy it is to divide. And we are all vulnerable to it. Many white men see a world of separate us/them groups. And many progressive non-whites and women also see us/them. If you think bringing down the white male is going to solve racism, I would encourage you to study up a bit more on the past 4 million years or so of human history. The white male oppressor will merely be replaced by another oppressive class. The sooner we can remove the racial prism from our view of the world, the better. It’s truly our only hope.
November 2nd, 2009 at 7:57 pm
Jon, you know I know that.
I was making a point to the racist bastard. O:)
November 2nd, 2009 at 8:56 pm
Re: New York was the last state to end slavery.
What the F*ck are you talking about, idiot?
November 3rd, 2009 at 1:48 am
the best way to encourage progressiveness is to segregate the american population by race and gender and then vilify the seemingly least progressive group, based on their pattern of voting in the last presidential election. the best revenge is to reinforce negative stereotypes of people who apparently hold negative stereotypes of others. we should show this map to our president who is, by virtue of his race if not his gender, more progressive than the people who voted him into office. perhaps he will have the final solution.
November 3rd, 2009 at 1:52 am
New York was the last state to end slavery. The very last. The reason why is because there were more slaves in New York than anywhere else in North America.
You do realize that when you make up fake “facts” like this, we can look them up in reliable references and prove that you’re absolutely wrong?
Facts aren’t just things you make up. They have to actually be true first.
November 3rd, 2009 at 4:01 pm
[...] way to read this map is to conclude, like Matt Yglesias, et al, that “white men are not very progressive.” But sometimes there are other, more creative and ultimately more compelling explanations [...]
November 3rd, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Not coincidentally, white men are falling behind white women in education and, if it were not for the glass ceiling, would be doing the same in business and the professions.
High school valedictorians are overwhelmingly female. High-achieving law students are increasingly female. White males are losing their undeserved race and gender privileges in every profession – including the military. Plus more white women vote than white men. If anything, the hostility toward Obama among white males reflects our increasing awareness of our increasing and mostly self-inflicted marginalization.
November 3rd, 2009 at 5:32 pm
Aww, poor baby… did I strike a nerve? You can’t deal with being told the truth?
I’ve been being told for years that I’m a racist solely because I registered Republican. Leftist “journalists” as well as “progressive” elected officials think it’s funny to throw out sexually-connotative slurs, and it’s okay because hey’re leftists and therefore not held accountable.
Dipshits like you have finally made the term “racist” meaningless. Congratulations.
November 3rd, 2009 at 11:59 pm
The most fervent hatred I see occurring nowdays is directed toward Southern Whites…why is that?
November 4th, 2009 at 12:13 am
Pope Ratzo:”If it’s “survival of the fittest”, then white males must not be very fit because they’re going to be outnumbered, badly.”
No, Whites overall are being swamped in the USA because the internationalist-oriented leftists and crypto-communists opened America’s borders post-1965 and flooded the nation with left-leaning ethnic minorities who benefited from the welfare of said leftists.
The South is the last bastion of traditional Anglo-Saxondom in the USA — if and when The South falls due to the increasing pressures of internationalism, rootless cosmopolitanism, neo-communism, and borderless/multiracial anarchy, the USA as a whole will fall soon after.
November 4th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
The most fervent hatred I see occurring nowdays is directed toward Southern Whites…why is that?
Because you’re a blind idiot.
November 4th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Anthony:”Because you’re a blind idiot.”
Personal attacks aside, various studies and old fashioned observation proves that Northern and Western cities like NYC, LA, Chicago, Boston, Seattle, Philadelphia, etc are much more racially segregated than Southern cities.
Also, racial income disparity is a whole lot higher in Northern and Western cities than in many Southern cities and states.
So why is there so much hypocrisy in Northern and Western states in regards to issues like racial segregation and income disparity?
November 4th, 2009 at 8:24 pm
I cannot support progressives or conservatives. Republicans seem to want to legislate morality and Democrats want to legislate everything else. All I ask of the Federal Government is to stay the hell out of my life!
November 5th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
It used to be fun to watch uneducated, opinionated people hurl slurs at each other. But now it has become the norm and we have educated opinionated people hurling slurs instead of discussing the issues. The terms egocentric and ethnocentric appear to have been left out of the mix because everyone is so busy defending his (or her) own point of view that there is no room left to work together for a common goal. I thought the goal was to avoid judging people by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
November 5th, 2009 at 11:26 pm
Roughly 41 percent of white males and 46 percent of white females voted for Obama. If the hypothesis is that a majority of white males voted for McCain because they fear being marginalized, what would account for a majority of white women doing the same? Blatant racism? Stupidity?
Some commenters seem to be having a lot of fun putting down The White Man, but apparently The White Woman gets to skate.
You could argue with validity that white male progressives are the purist, most altruistic kind. Unlike persons in disadvantaged groups, white males have very little go gain via gender- or race-based progressive policies. They vote the way they vote not because their personal ox is getting gored, but because they truly believe in equality.
November 5th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
various studies and old fashioned observation proves that Northern and Western cities like NYC, LA, Chicago, Boston, Seattle, Philadelphia, etc are much more racially segregated than Southern cities.
Then cite the “various studies.” Also, “old fashioned observation” typically proves nothing and usually only serves to support the bias of the observer.