Prejudice has declined among White Americans since Trump's Election, Study Shows


There's been a great deal of hysteria, innocent of actual data, about a purported massive rise of racism and prejudice under, and because of, Donald Trump. Trump's divisive rhetoric is deeply regrettable, and may have helped inspire particular violent racist incidents related to immigration, even if the perpetrators weren't Trump fans. Regardless, the overall rate of prejudice among white Americans has fortunately continued it's long-term decline, according to this study by grad students Daniel J. Hopkins and Samantha Washington:

In his campaign and first few years in office, Donald Trump consistently defied contemporary norms by using explicit, negative rhetoric targeting ethnic/racial minorities. Did this rhetoric lead white Americans to express more prejudiced views of African Americans or Hispanics, whether through the normalization of prejudice or other mechanisms? We assess that question using a 13-wave panel conducted with a population-based sample of Americans between 2008 and 2018. We find that via most measures, white Americans' expressed anti-Black and anti-Hispanic prejudice declined after the 2016 campaign and election, and we can rule out even small increases in the expression of prejudice. These results suggest the limits of racially charged rhetoric's capacity to heighten prejudice among white Americans overall. They also indicate that prejudice can behave like an issue attitude: rather than being a fixed predisposition, prejudice can respond thermostatically to changing presidential rhetoric and policy positions.

NEXT: The Growth of the "Cultic Milieu" and the Spread of Harmful Ideas

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. This makes sense. I doubt that Trump's presence has increased the number of racists although it has surely emboldened those folks with such attitudes to speak their minds and fly their colours.

    1. I think it's even more likely that media fantasies about how racist Trump is have done far more than the man himself.

      Sell the country "he's a racist racist that racists racistly and all the racists love him and are more powerful now" ... and the racists might even listen.

      (He's a crass prat, but frankly I see very little if any racial bigotry in his blather.)

      1. Sig,
        Given that scores and scores of Republican, Independent, and Democrat observers have detailed an endless number of outright racist comments and an endless number of possible (ie, "dogwhistle") racist comments . . . I think this suggests more about your own ability to discern racism, and not very much about whether or not Trump is a racist. (Personally, I cannot see into Trump's heart, so I have no idea if he is a racist. But he certainly has done racist things for decades, and has said a lot of racist things. At some point, I stop caring if he is "not racist but says racist things and does racist things" or if he "does and says racist things because he's actually a racist." A difference that makes no difference is no difference.

        1. What are the racist things that the President does?

          1. He doesnt know. Hes pushing a narrative like he always does. And if he cant find actual racism he'll yell dog whistles to prove it. Oddly only him and leftist dogs hear the whistle.

            1. Do neither of you have Google? There's lots of lists.

              1. Yes, and there are lists of alien sightings too.

            2. "Oddly only him and leftist dogs hear the whistle."

              That would make the Republican former Speaker of the House, as well as many other Republicans, leftist.

      2. I see most of the racism coming from those with chips on their shoulders blaming racism for their personal failures in life.

    2. This is undeniably true. Elizabeth Warren has some thoughts on this.
      Who would think it was all Democrats? I guess old habits die hard Liberals.

  2. (puts on liberal hat) You think this shows things are getting better? It actually just shows that white Americans were more racist when a black man was in charge.

    (takes of liberal hat) I think it shows that Obama divided America along racial lines without the heated rhetoric, for example, the "beer summit" after he commented on the Cambridge police (quite stupidly) or that he weighed in on the Trayvon case saying that "if he had a son, he would look like Trayvon", or that he never repudiated the rioters in Ferguson (note I am using the left's standards on that last one).

    1. Look at what Trump says and does about race. Look at what Obama does.

      You think Obama's the divisive one?!

      1. I think they are both very divisive.

      2. Obama was very divisive. I realize that it is a matter of subjective opinion, and you hear a clean articulate black man (like Biden did) but I heard someone willing to engage in farcical identity politics to encourage base turnout and lend weight to the meme during the Obama years that if you didn't support him, you were a racist.

        And it was more than just rhetoric, for example, his Justice Department dropped an open-and-shut voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party (check the videos and ask yourself what would happen if someone did it wearing white hoods).

      3. Yeah, look at what Trump actually says and does, without all the "coding" and "dog whistle" garbage.

        Obama frequently worked to exacerbate racial tensions, by humoring false claims of racism in cases like Ferguson, or Travon Martin. He just did so in an urbane manner, which apparently makes it alright.

        Trump can say and do the right thing, and he'll still be accused of racism, because there is literally nothing he could do that the left is incapable of characterizing as racist.

      4. "Bitter clingers" wasn't divisive, it was inclusive to all those it didn't exclude.


        1. Why is "bitter clingers" in quotation marks?

          1. Because he is quoting obama dummy.

            1. I see your lack of a comma turns "dummy" into an adjective. All true Scotsmen approve.

            2. But President Obama never said "bitter clingers".

        2. Note, though, that "bitter clingers" was ... actually literally aimed at Democrats who supported other people than him?

      5. It was a comparative statement.

        I wasn't saying Obama was a saint. Telling so many took me to be saying that and then crowingly posted their single counterexamples.

        Hard to say if they were trying to create a strawman on purpose or accidentally, but there's some weird stuff going on there.

        1. Obama ran Concentration Camps on the southern border for the entirety of his administration. At times, those camps were filled with Children in Cages.

          He also deported more people than Trump did - people of a different race than him.

          He fooled a lot of people at the time, but now the blinders are off. By 2019 standards Obama was Literally Hitler. Sure he was a lot more eloquent than Trump (as if that's hard to do), so I guess his nickname from now forward should be Slick Adolf.

          1. I mean, I guess this is cute, and I do see this myopic rhetoric on lefty forums, but Trump's policies and governing style are pretty different from Obama's and not in the more unifying direction.

            For instance - Obama didn't have policies to maximize child separation as a deterrent as Trump did. He also had time limits Trump got rid of. And the conditions were better, because he didn't overtax the system as Trump is flagrantly doing.

            1. I have a daughter that works in the immigration field (for a law firm that works on behalf of immigrants). She and I have discussed this. And we (apparently along with you) agree that the main difference is the tone now vs. the Obama years. And tone matters.

              But other than child separation (which was temporary) and DACA (which Trump has said he would support if it were encoded into law rather than done illegitimately as Obama did it) the policies are very similar.

              And if you're going to say Trump is running concentration camps - which is ridiculous but you think is swell - then you have to say that Obama also ran concentration camps. Because they're the same damn facilities.

              1. DACA was legitimate. Trump was just using it as a bargaining chip.

                What you call tone, I call performative cruelty.

                But Trump's immigration policies differ substantively in their explicit hostility to refugees. That's pretty big.

                Obama made the best of the system he was given, but yeah there were camps, I'm not letting him or Congress at the time off the hook for that.

                But Trump's embrace and use of them despite the growing deaths and awful conditions puts him in a different moral category.
                If Obama's nonfeasance, Trump's malfeasance.

                1. "DACA was legitimate."

                  Oh, bullshit. Obama came right out and said that he couldn't do it on his own, and then when Congress refused to, suddenly changed his mind.

                  Some aspects of DACA might have been within the outer limits of prosecutorial discretion, but the program as a whole went well beyond that.

                  1. What Obama couldn't do on his own was materially much more sweeping than DACA.

                    1. I should copy and paste this comment and put it in the dictionary next to the entry for rationalization with a cross reference to partisan filter.

                    2. Weak, dude. Back up your objection.

                      I didn't state an opinion - I stated a fact. Look it up if you think it's wrong.

                      Additionally, Brett saying DACA is illegitimate flies in the fact of all the court cases that says it didn't. So if anyone is using partisanship to author their statements, it's not me.

                    3. DACA is on its way to the Supreme Court.

                      Trump has had a number of losses in his efforts to terminate the program; Apparently at least some courts don't consider, "We concluded the program was unconstitutional." to be adequate reason for terminating a program under the APA.

                      Since the administration decided to terminate the program, the court challenges that were lost were cases challenging the termination, NOT cases challenging the program's constitutionality. The one case challenging its constitutionality has not, so far as I know, had a hearing on the merits.

                    4. DAPA, the same program as DACA but with different subjects, was ruled unconstitutional. That's pretty clear precedence.

                      DACA is an obviously unconstitutional act: it expends funds without Congressional authorization, without even the stretched justifications of Trump's Wall. And that's discounting the BS "prosecutorial discretion" of refusing to enforce an entire class of laws.

                    5. What funds does it expend?

                    6. DACA, like DAPA, created a program (including hiring new government employees) that allowed people to apply for deferral, to have their applications reviewed, archived, and tracked; to grant work authorizations; to allow employers to verify the work authorization; and to track the applicants over time. All of this require new staff, new equipment, new spaces, new documentation, increased long-term archival and records tracking costs, etc.

                      In addition to hiring people and buying stuff, DACA and DAPA attempted to add people to government welfare programs in violation of the laws as written and passed by Congress.

                      All of this was covered in the DAPA cases, and has been brought up in the DACA cases.

                2. Poor ignorant sarcastro. Thinking tone changes words and actions of a policy. How ignorantly pathetic.

                  1. Tone and words from the President sure as heck do matter, Jesse. People look to their leaders. It probably matters a lot more than policies.

                    But even changing the goal posts like you're scornfully insisting, there's not shortage of racial red-meat policies like the Muslim ban, performative cruelty in treatment of illegals at the border and beyond, pardoning Joe Arpaio, screwing Puerto Rico,

                    1. Like Progressive Dem presidential candidates fund raising before the victims of mass shootings were even removed from the scenes. Although it isn't surprising because there were more victims, the same weekend, in Progressive Dem controlled Chicago & Baltimore!

                      Like Progressive Dem presidential candidates running to the cameras with their lies & propaganda before even a preliminary search had been done on the perpetrators?

                    2. Waiting for you to criticize tone and words from leftist Democrats.

                    3. FlamCCT, that's all off-topic flailing.

                      Finrod, this blog post is about President Trump.

                      No one seems to have addressed my actual list of Trump's divisive policies, just lots of 'liberals bad.'
                      Rage at your opposition doesn't excuse your own side. Just makes you look like you don't actually care about anything but the rage.

        2. It wasn't even good as a comparative statement since you didn't give any rational basis for making the comparison beyond your own subjective opinion. When confronted with counter-examples, you now attempt to dismiss them as mere anecdotes without suggesting what kind of aggregation of data you would consider acceptable.

          From my own perspective, I think Trump talks more like a racist while Obama acted more racist.

          1. True - I'm taking it as evident that Trump's been governing in a style at least as if not more divisive than Obama's was. Just like the OP, and the rest of the world outside this blog.

            Perhaps I'm reversing the burden, but I'm content with the probity of the responses I'm getting - minor anecdotes and lots of pounding on the table with occasional references to that darn media.

            1. You remain steadfast in your ignorant partisan blindness. Obama started his 8 years with his chief of staff stating "fuck them we have the votes." Then telling others of they dont like it, win some elections. And after they did he called them bitter clingers as he told lie after lie about ACA. He consistently, along with congressional democrats called his opponents terrorists with bombs strapped to their chest. Told them he would use his pen and phone instead of working with them. Had his national security advisor Ben Rhodes go to the NYT to brag about how easy it was to lie to the american people.

              Seriously, fuck your ignorance.

              1. You remain steadfast in ignoring the consensus forming around you that your 8-year wispy oft-repeated anecdotes have nothing on Trump's long and growing list.

                As I said, its consistent, though arguable, if you want to argue both are divisive, but if you're going to say Obama was divisive and Trump's some kinda unifier, you're revealing a lot about yourself and convincing nobody.

                1. "Wispy"?

                  Look, why don't you just come out and admit that you don't care if somebody is divisive, if they're on your side? And if they're not on your side, that by itself constitutes being "divisive".

                  1. Leftists never admit their bias.

                  2. Yeah, Brett, it's me who doesn't care about my side being divisive.

                    As you spin wildly to defend Trump.

      6. You think Obama’s the divisive one?!

        You mean the guy who called his own grandmother a "typical white woman," nominated a justice who promised to be based because of her ethnicity, had a vice-president who stated "they want to put y'all back in chains," ran an ad against an opponent that was a religious minority claiming he's "not one of us" and often said, "I won, elections have consequences. sit down, shut up?"

        You mean THAT Obama???

      7. Please list all comments where Trump has disparaged Americans of any race.

        1. Actually, Trump has disparaged Americans of lots of races. The question is whether he has disparaged any American of one race when he wouldn't disparage Americans of a different race for doing the same things as the first American.

          1. Should be easy for you to start naming them, then,

            I didn't even vote for Trump but I'm sick to the teeth of whiners whining the same vacuous bullshit about Trump when there are actual legitimate things to criticize him about that the whiners just ignore.

      8. "Look at what Trump says and does about race. Look at what Obama does.

        You think Obama’s the divisive one?!"


      9. Yes actually.

        Obama's comments, especially in response to Freddie Gray in Baltimore were particularly divisive, and helped lead to the Baltimore police....reducing....their enforcement. As "requested".

        The result has been a spike in murders. 400 murders over the baseline over 4 years. Thanks Obama.

        1. The result has been a spike in murders. 400 murders over the baseline over 4 years. Thanks Obama.

          Was this some kind of sarcasm? Do you try and by this hypocritical?

    2. For over a quarter-century one polling organization has asked this : “Are racial differences due to lack of will?” This is thought to be a benign way of gauging how much Those People are thought shiftless losers. From 1996 to 2008 the yes responses decline slightly, from 55% to 50%. In the first two years of Obama's presidency they shot up steeply ten percentage points. A slight decline ensued over his remaining six years, but the number was still higher at the end of his presidency than back in 1996. Under our current reality-TV star (safely white) COC they have declined further still.

      From this, two conclusions :

      (1) It is doubtful the "beer summit" or one comment on Trayvon produced such remarkable data.

      (2) mad_kalak thinks better with his liberal hat on. His MAGA cap seeming to constrict his brain. Do the right thing, guy, and toss it away in the garbage !!!

      1. Third conclusion: The fact of a black man succeeding to the highest office in the nation dispelled the notion of "the system" being at fault among some responders, since surely a system rigged against black people would have prevented one from being elected president

      2. My liberal hat just shows that I can understand people like grb.

        I said "for example" and listed just three examples of Obama's divisive racial politics. What'dya want, a term paper?

        From the same survey data that you present, one could also make the conclusion (which I do) that Obama's rhetoric about blaming white America for black America's problems (instead of China or Mexico as Trump does for all America) was effective.

        1. I think you'd find next to zero evidence for your thesis, your term paper would be a page or two heavily padded with fluff & filler, and it would be fairly graded as nonsense. Maybe extra credit is available?

        2. "I said “for example” and listed just three examples of Obama’s divisive racial politics."

          If those are the three best examples you could come up with, that says a lot. A fucking coffee summit, a conversation? Sympathizing with a dead person?

          1. Which dead person? The one who was bashing whitey's head against the concrete? The assaulter? That's ok. He might have been Obama's son.

            Sympathizing with his victim? Racist. Bigot. Murderer.

          2. Yep. Two Terms and eight years, yet those are the best examples he can provide of Obama's "divisive racial politics". When it comes to race-baiting & identity politics, Trump trounces that in an average week - and by a wide margin.

            But what do you expect? Obama couldn't even be born on U.S. soil without prompting the Right to phony fabricated substance-less rage. Considering that, you know they can make-up "divisive racial politics" out of whole cloth.

            1. heh. Funny. Watch those goalposts move. However, let me take advantage of your sudden desire for qualitative data, and ask you to then apply those same standards of evidence for Trump. I think you'll find you going to have to ask for an extension on that term paper, and grb, hope the teacher takes extra credit.

      3. On the average (Negroes/Blacks/African-Americans) have worse jobs, income, and housing than white people.Do you think these differences are . . . D. Because most (Negroes/Blacks/African-Americans) just don't have the motivation or will power to pull themselves up out of poverty?

        The way the question is worded is somewhat ambiguous, as a true racial supremacist might answer "No" because they believe blacks are inferior, and lack the intelligence or ability to perform more skilled jobs, regardless of their will or motivation

        1. I agree - it's a better measure of a certain kind of racism, not all kinds of racism.

        2. I'd even suggest that selecting that option is mostly blaming it on culture rather than race.

          1. Unfortunately, both Jim Crow and its relative absence in the North led blacks to be disproportionately in harms way when "the war on poverty" backfired, creating urban ghettos that culturally damaged everybody living there, but the people living there were disproportionately black.

            1. Right? What if someone's answer is "yes, not because of any inherent difference but because they are disproportionate victims of the counterproductive war on poverty?"

              1. That blacks are poor and therefore lack willpower...that's not some woke SJW position.

                1. I don't think they lack will power. What they lack is role models to teach them to apply it in productive directions.

                  1. So you would not be in the lack of will side of the study.

                    1. No, put me down for "misapplied" will.

    3. "...or that he never repudiated the rioters in Ferguson (note I am using the left’s standards on that last one)."

      But he did repudiate the rioters in Ferguson.

      1. And Trump repudiated the rioters in Charlottesville. The left just pretends otherwise because he had the bad taste to repudiate all of them, and only them.

        1. But not the racists and white supremacists.

  3. Please quote exact language of the President's alleged racist language.

    Stop spreading the lies of those who tried to (and are still trying to) overturn a Presidential election.

    1. The standard Progressive argument is that Trump has rudely criticized Persons of Color, and that act is racist. Therefore Trump is racist.

      It is possible that people here may be able to present actual evidence of racism that years of research of Democrats with bylines have been unable to discover... technically, it is not impossible. Technically.

      1. "It is possible that people here may be able to present actual evidence of racism that years of research of Democrats with bylines have been unable to discover… technically, it is not impossible. Technically."

        How about this evidence?

        -In 1973, Trump Management Corporation was sued by the Justice department for violation the Fair Housing Act. Officials found that Trump had refused to Black tenants, and had lied to black applicants about whether apartments were available. Trump settled.

        - John O'Donnell, former president of Trump Plaza Hotel & Casio, recounted Trump as having said: "Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day...I think that the guy is lazy. And it's probably not his fault, because laziness is a trait in black. It really is, I believe that." Trump initially denied these remarks, but admitted latter it was probably true.

        -Trump Plaza Hotel & Casino had to pay $200,000 because it transferred black & Women dealer off tables.

        -Trump once stated that Native American reservations operating casinos shouldn't be allowed because: "They don't look like Indians to me."

        -Trump state that a FEDERAL JUDGE (from Indiana, no less) should resign from the case against Trump University because of his Mexican heritage. Again, the Judge was born in INDIANA.

        - When a Black Reporter asked Trump if he had plans to meet with the Congressional Black Caucus, Trump asked her if she could set the meeting up.

        - The "Shit hole" countries comment.

        Plus many other instances. On their own, none of these things may be particularly damning, but the body of work, on the whole, should be.

        1. So ... which of those was "divisive" while he was President?

          The last two are the only options, and of that the first one ... does not seem racist?

          ("Are you going to do X?" "Can you arrange it?" is SNARK, not racism - "If you want me to meet people, do the work, don't put it one me.")

          The second one sounds like "dogwhistle" bullshit. e.g. Haiti is simply a goddamn shithole, and it ain't 'cause the people that live there are black; Jamaica's full of black people and it's not a shithole.

          "You can't call a place full of black people shitty no matter how shitty it undeniably is because that's racist" is why nobody takes 'racist' seriously anymore from people like you.

          FFS, I think the president is a pile of crap, but you can't do better than THIS?

        2. "In 1973, Trump Management Corporation was sued by the Justice department for violation the Fair Housing Act. Officials found that Trump had"

          Fallacy of equivocation; The "Trump Management Corporation" was sued, they found that the Trump Management Corporation had refused black tenants. Need I point out that Trump isn't every corporation that bears his name?

          Some of these do evince a certain degree of bigotry, I'll concede, though not any scary level of it.

          "The “Shit hole” countries comment."

          Oh, come on. Some countries are shitholes. Do you dispute that?

          1. Right Brett. This is of a piece with your other defenses of Trump's business operations.

            "Hey, all businessmen have their companies go bankrupt repeatedly, stiff vendors, and get sued thousands of times."

            Funny, I know lots of businessmen, and I haven't observed that.

            Come to think of it, I've been in business most of my career, and never declared bankruptcy or, so far as I recall, stiffed a vendor. Got sued twice, once by a patent troll, once by a disgruntled ex-employee for wrongful discharge. That was a lot of trouble, but ultimately went away.

            1. 80% of businesses go bankrupt in 10 years, so either you know a lot of brilliant businessmen, or you're pulling numbers out of your ass again.

        3. The federal judge was supported by La Raza and had connections to the group. There was a conflict of interest numbnuts.

          1. That's not proof of a conflict of interest.

            Trump also just said he was Mexican and that's enough.

            1. The judge being married to the defendant wouldn't be "proof" of a conflict of interest; He might be inhumanly objective, after all!

          2. "Connections?"

            Bullshit, Jesse.

            1. You'd be whining to high fucking heaven if some judge had a connection to Trump and ruled against, say, Obamacare, so shove your bullshit back up your ass where it came from.

              1. Oh fuck you, moron.

                Curiel belongs to the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association, which has nothing to do with your dreaded bogeyman National Council of La Raza. You shove the Fox BS up your ass.

                And yeah, if a judge with significant Trump connections ruled in his favor I would raise hell, because that would be an actual conflict, as opposed to one that exists only in the minds of right-wing bigots like you.

                1. Nothing like belonging to a group explicitly called
                  " The Race " while, denying any bigotry or racism at all. Those goalposts have left the field and are in the parking lot.

        4. I do love how you conflate the actions of people employed by companies owned by Trump with the attitudes and inner thoughts of Trump, personally. By that logic, Obama is a horrid anti-black racist because the US government was sued by hundreds of black people for racism during the years he was responsible for it.
          And you've "quotes" from people whose own friends say it never happened, that have no evidence of having happened, and are counter to the actual actions Trump has taken elsewhere.

          I also note that you are doing exactly what I was critical of in the abstract - saying that criticism of an individual is racism if that person is a minority. Criticism of a Latino judge's rulings after that judge made a questionable ruling against Trump is not racist. Saying that he was a bad judge because of his race would have been... but you can't say Trump did that, because he didn't.

          You are just the same blind prejudiced bigot as a third of your fellow Democrats that think a white person criticizing a minority is racist.

          Incidentally, you hear a lot of dog whistles. And when you hear that many, just maybe... you're the dog.

          1. I'd say a reference to the judge's ethnicity is pretty clearly a mark of bigotry.

            Suppose a convicted black criminal said something like, "That white judge gave me the maximum sentence." Sound like a race-based complaint to you?

            1. Well, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion." Is that racist? Is that a clear mark of bigotry?

              In this case, Trump accused the judge of having a conflict of interest. Then, once Trump was called racist for this, he doubled down by pointing out how he thought Curiel was biased against him:
              Curiel was a friend of one the plaintiff's families, proudly and publicly declared his Mexican heritage, and is a member of the La Raza Lawyers Association (not LRNC) - a legal activist group that provides support to Hispanics, including illegal immigrants (only Hispanics, though). Curiel had spoken out against Trump's proposed immigration policies, and according to his friends and coworkers, citing his heritage and support for his ancestral people.

              Normally, a judge that is friends with one of the parties could be expected to recuse themselves. From the ABA:
              "Canon 3C of the Judicial Code outlines these situations, including the judge's personal bias or prejudice toward a matter or its participants, personal knowledge of the facts that are disputed in a case, a professional or familial relationship with a party or an attorney, or a financial interest in the outcome of the matter. Most interpretations of the code mandate a judge's disqualification or recusal if any of these factors are present."

              Maybe Curiel should have recused himself. Or maybe it is possible that he could have been completely unbiased. But it certainly presents the appearance of impropriety, and that invites criticism.

              1. "Wise Latina" was a label applied to the judge by her supporters supposedly elevating her judgement. Checking, it seems she originated the phrase.

                Left/right DNC/GOP partisans need to be reminded that Trump is an Independent/Democrat/Reform/Republican who got nominated as the Republican candidate in the Republican primaries because enough people voted for him (and enough people were not thrilled by the prospect of a 3rd term for the Clinton Administration, and Cthulhu wasn't running).

                Trump was the champion of the none-of-the-above voters who actually out-number staunch Democrat and Republican party loyalists. DNC/GOP types hang out in their echo chambers until they are not only deaf but blind. I am beginning to agree with H.G. Wells' The New World Order (1940) assessment of the two party system in UK and US as a detriment to good government.

              2. "Maybe Curiel should have recused himself. Or maybe it is possible that he could have been completely unbiased. But it certainly presents the appearance of impropriety, and that invites criticism."

                Show me one case that says the Ethical Rules disqualify someone with Curiel's type of associations. I won't hold my breath.

                Paul Ryan, then the Republican Speaker of the House, called Trump's behavior in the Curiel case, "the very definition of racism."

                1. I cited the ABA's rules, in case you missed it.
                  #1 - Personal relationship with plaintiffs
                  #2 - Personal opposition to defendants
                  That's plain and simple right there. The rest - Curiel's active and public political activism on an issue that Trump is famous for taking the opposed position on - is not something that *requires* recusal, but it is a great sign that Curiel is not impartial to Trump.

                  I'm glad to see you think Paul Ryan is correct about everything, though. I look forward to your support of lower taxes, removing affirmative action, restricting abortions, opposing drug legalization, funding religious groups, the death penalty, increased use of fossil fuels, eliminating green subsidies, and reducing gun control.

                  By the way, Democrat Jon Deutsch said that Trump's criticism of Curiel isn't racist. Obviously, since one person on your said it, it must be true, right?

  4. "defied contemporary norms by using explicit, negative rhetoric targeting ethnic/racial minorities"

    Can someone explain to me what racist rhetoric he used? Was it calling MS13 gang members "animals"?

    That's hardly targeted at ethnic/racial minorities, unless the study authors are implying that all Mexicans are gang members.

    1. Exactly. I object to the OP taking it for granted that Trump actually HAS used racial rhetoric. In fact, he hasn't, but it avails him not, because there's literally nothing he could say or refrain from saying that the left can't characterize as racist.

  5. Racial resentment among white Republicans has been on a steady downward trend for more than 20 years, interrupted only by the election of Barack Obama.

    1. Mother Jones & kevin Drum - not exactly an unbiased source.

      The objection was to Obama's policies. the real racists (ie those screaming racism) blamed it on racism.

      1. Joe,

        Look at the graph in the paper. It bears out Sarcastro's comment.

        The downward trend in anti-black prejudice is plainly interrupted, even reversed, during the Obama administration, and then resumes when he leaves office.

        There is an Obama effect, not a Trump effect.

        1. Yes, it was an effect of Obama deliberately exacerbating rather than tamping down racial tensions. Because he's black we're supposed to pretend he wasn't doing it.

          1. Brett,

            Oh stop it, Brett.

            Once again you impute the worst possible motive to those you disagree with. They never just misjudge, or err. It's always a deliberate part of a conspiracy against Brett Bellmore and All He Holds Dear.

            Obama could have done a better job with Ferguson, but he had no reason at all to want to exacerbate racial tensions. It's absurd to claim that was his purpose.

            As for Martin, well, if you think Zimmerman would have made an issue of a white kid doing what Martin was doing you are kidding yourself. The whole incident wouldn't have started.

            1. "he had no reason at all to want to exacerbate racial tensions"

              Now who is being naive, Kay.

              Democrats [and their media handmaidens] stoke racial tensions every day to try to expand their power. Every GOP politician, without exception, is accused of being racist, even those who are minorities themselves.

              1. You're deranged.

                1. Come on benard, don't tell me there is a cynical side of you that can't see that Democrats and media might want to stir the people's fears up to get out the base voter. I'm not saying you have to agree that this is happening, but that it is possible.

                  And I'm also sure that 100% of the time that stupid terror alert system moved upwards in the Bush years (sometimes right before an election) was never used to stir the people's fears up because the average voter sees the GOP as stronger on foreign affairs.

                  1. Bob is a political nihilist who thinks winning is all that matters.

                    That he projects this onto his opposition is not surprising, but neither does it prove anything about Obama having a secret agenda to make make whites resent blacks more.

                    1. And you, and benard, are naive when it comes to Democrats and simultaneously cynical when it comes to anyone else.

                    2. As I've said many times, I come in with a presumption everyone here posts in good faith, and no one is lying about their motives.

                      Thus, I take you at your word that you agree with Bob and sincerely think Dems are collectively stoking racial tensions to win elections, and lying about their concern and outrage at Trump (who I guess is playing into their hands?)
                      At the same time as you kinda think diversity is bad yourself. Bit of cognitive dissonance there, but nothing that implies you're lying.

                      Bob has explicitly laid out his winning is all that matters philosophy in previous posts. He includes bad faith in his arsenal, though he doesn't seem to use it on these boards.

                    3. No, the outrage is real, the stoking of racial tensions is also real, and like a person who gives money to a charity to look good to others and get a tax write-off AND because they believe in the cause of the charity, it is possible that there are multiple reasons and motivations for an action.

                  2. m_k,

                    I think some Democrats sometimes go overboard in catering to racial politics. I have no use Al Sharpton, for example, and hate it when Democratic politicians confer respectability on the man, who can best be described as a race hustler.

            2. Look, in the Zimmerman case it was drop dead obvious self defense from the very start, which is why they had to look so hard to find somebody willing to actually prosecute Zimmerman. A beat up guy who has fired one shot, and a fatally shot guy with scuffed knuckles does not leave much doubt about what happened: You don't beat somebody bloody AFTER they've fatally shot you.

              Nobody would have made a fuss about that shooting except to stir racial tensions, it was about as clear cut a case of self defense as it gets.

              And Obama didn't just do it initially. Even after Zimmerman was acquitted he kept it up, pretending Martin was the one who'd been attacked, rather than Zimmerman.

              1. Just to add with regards to Zimmerman, has everyone already forgotten that MSNPC quite literally edited his mugshot and bleached him in order to stoke racial tensions and hide his Hispanic ancestry?

                1. "has everyone already forgotten that MSNPC quite literally edited his mugshot and bleached him in order to stoke racial tensions and hide his Hispanic ancestry..."

                  But he was a "white hispanic". It's not MSNBC'S fault that the mugshot failed to reflect that.

                  1. There are comparison photos you can easily google that show the networks lightened his appearance. The actual mugshot looks significantly different.

                    1. Also, NBC doctored the 911 dispatch recording and while IANAL, to this day I am still shocked that NBC won in court.

                2. Not just his HIspanic ancesty, the bleaching also served to hide his African ancestry.

                  George Zimmerman had as much black ancestry as Homer Plessy. If Florida's Jim Crow laws hadn't been repealed, he'd have been classified as "colored."

                3. And don't forget that NBC edited out the wound on the back of his head from Trayvon pounding it into the concrete-- the very thing that made him shoot.

              2. Brett,

                I happen to think Zimmerman should have been acquitted, not because it was "drop dead obvious self defense" but because there was enough doubt as to what specifically happened that a conviction was not justified.

                That said, we do know that Zimmerman initiated the whole thing, and, deny all you want, he would not have done so had Martin been white.

                1. Define what you mean by "initiated the whole thing".

                  If by initiated the whole thing you mean Zimmerman followed Trayvon, sure. That was the first event, true, but it was also to which Trayvon reacted violently too (when there was no need), then sure, Zimmerman "initiated" the whole thing.

                2. No, we actually don't know that, and the evidence is perfectly consistent with Zimmerman responding to police direction to hold his ground, and being ambushed by Martin.

                  Which is legally irrelevant, since simply following somebody on a sidewalk isn't legal justification to beat them up.

                3. he would not have done so had Martin been white

                  There is zero justification for that comment. By most accounts, Zimmerman was an asshole looking to make himself feel tough by pulling a gun on someone. The fact that you think he specifically went looking for a black kid to pull his schtick on says a lot more about you than it does about Zimmerman.

                  Zimmerman would have done the same to any kid he thought looked suspicious, and depending on the kid, the result would have been exactly the same whether he was black or white or green.

                  Here is an interesting question I have never seen contemplated. What would have been the result if Zimmerman had been knocked unconscious before getting a shot off? Prison for Martin for the assault. And that answer doesn't change depending on Martin's race.

                  1. The thing is, there's every reason to believe that Zimmerman didn't "pull a gun" on Martin. "Jumping the gun" is a movie thing, not real life, and should at least have resulted in two shots having been fired, not one.

                    The available facts support the theory that Martin attacked Zimmerman, and then Zimmerman shot Martin while Martin was occupied beating Zimmerman's head into the pavement. That you can imagine scenarios where Zimmerman did something outrageous prior to this happening doesn't mean there's any evidence those scenarios are anything but fevered imaginings.

                    As I wrote, the Zimmerman case was about as open and shut an instance of justified self defense as you are ever likely to see. Which is why they had so much trouble finding somebody willing to pursue the case.

                    To answer your question, the likely result if Zimmerman had been knocked unconscious would have been Martin going up the river for murder, because there's no reason to suppose he would have stopped beating the guy's head against the pavement before fatal injuries were sustained.

                4. "he would not have done so had Martin been white."

                  That's a racist comment by you, you racist McRacist.

                  Sucks having your own standards applied to you, don't it?

                  1. Bullshit. In no sense is it racist to accuse someone else of being a racist. It might be wrong, but only an idiot like you would call it racist.

                    Still embarrassed by your La Raza fuck-up?

              3. I remember early in the Zimmerman/Martin case that Brandy Green was quoted as saying there were signs that Martin had made it to the back of her house (where he and his dad were staying) and she did not understand why he did not just go in, why he was in a fight so far from the house.

                Once the Crump legal team took over the narrative, Green disappeared. I searched in vain for further mention of Brandy Green.

                Martin's girlfriend Rachel Jeantel's trial testimony (and interview on Piers Morgan) established that Martin on the phone with her had not seen the man who spotted him for over a minute, he didn't think he was being followed or was in danger, and was about to enter the Green house when Jeantel convinced him he needed to go whoopass on that "homo rapist" and keep her on the phone to hear it.

                Confirmed, Brandy Green was right that Martin had made it to the back of her house. He could have gone in safely and avoided a fight.

                1. This (Zimmerman chased down and murdered Martin as he ran away) is as tiresome has having to point out that that the "CBS Killian Documents" supplied by Bill Burkett to Mary Mapes do not match the authenticated Texas Air National guard (TANG) documents from Killian's office (Burkett MS Word Times New Roman vs TANG Olympia typewriter). While the CBS documents are signed and initialed by the same hand, that handwriting does not match Col Killian's signatures from TANG documents. Nope. To true believers, the Bill Burkett documents have never been proven false (which implies all the Killian documents in the TANG archives must be the real fakes) and Mary Mapes is a heroine for speaking Truth to Power.
                  And the seating arrangement in Oliver Stone's JFK 1991 does not match 1963 photos of the limo seating arrangement, photos of Gov and Mrs Connelly and President Kennedy and the First Lady in the limo, or Zapruder film frames Z224-Z228.
                  And on the moon, sunlight gets reflected into shadows, just as on earth, and shadows on the moonlander photos would not be total black.

                  "Poetic truth" - nonfactual but emotionally true to justify politics.
                  I get tired of it.

            3. "Once again you impute the worst possible motive to those you disagree with."

              You do that on a regular basis. It's one of your go-to moves.

              "As for Martin, well, if you think Zimmerman would have made an issue of a white kid doing what Martin was doing you are kidding yourself. The whole incident wouldn’t have started."

              You even do it in this same post.

              1. Zimmerman had a clear history of making 911 calls to complain about blacks walking around.

                And yes, Brett, I did mean that he followed Martin initially, for no particular reason. Look, the guy is an asshole and a troublemaker and a police wannabe.

                And you're awfully ready to defend his behavior, despite not having been there.

                1. Zimmerman was the captain of the crime watch group in his community, doofus. It was his JOB to call cops when something suspicious was happening, and if black teenagers were the ones doing something suspicious, then that's not racist.

                  You're awfully ready to throw Zimmerman under the jail, despite not having been there.

                  1. If you could read you'd know that I specifically said I thought he deserved to be acquitted.

          2. Tell me, Brett.

            Is any of that upsurge in racism due to whites being offended that a black man with a funny name was President?

            Any of it due to the lying bastards, Trump very much included, who constantly promoted the "Kenyan Muslim not born in the US" rhetoric?

            Or do you seriously believe it was all due to a couple of incidents that displeased you? That's utterly ridiculous.

      2. Ad hominem out of the way, read and engage with the the content.

        If the issue was with Obama's policies, why did people suddenly start thinking blacks had inferior will power?

        1. >If the issue was with Obama’s policies....

          Brett isn't saying it was his policies (though they didn't help)

          ....why did people suddenly start thinking blacks had inferior will power?

          He, and I, are saying it was his rhetoric. He blamed white America for black America's poor economic position, not that they have inferior will power. Basically, he used an old saw and blamed whitey. Remember, Reverend Wright? Of which Obama said "As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children."

          1. Good thing I wasn't replying to Brett's later post with that one, then.

            You can think Obama was divisive. You can think Trump isn't so bad. But you cannot consistently think both that Obama was divisive and that Trump is not.

            Calling Wright imperfect isn't much of an endorsements of Wright's politics. That you take it as an insult to white people is telling...but not about Obama.

            1. You know, it's possible to think Obama AND Trump are divisive, both in different ways and for different reasons. And if you scroll up to my first comment you see that I am saying that. While I admittedly wasn't simplicity explicit (because I didn't anticipate your line of questions), by saying that Obama divided racially divided America without the heated rhetoric, that means that I'm saying that Trump uses heated rhetoric and that it racially divides America

              He called Wright imperfect....after he was a member of the church for 20 years listening to Black Liberation Theology.

              1. Sure - hence why I didn't call MatthewSlyfield a hypocrite above.

                I'm not going to re-litigate whether Obama is a secret anti-white racist who through means arcane and subtle divided our country with little moments throughout his 8 years calculated to make whites feel put down.

                1. I certainly don't think he was a secret anti-white racist. I think he understood increased racial tensions to be a way of making sure Democrats could never lose the critical black vote, and to make criticizing himself politically dangerous.

                  Increased racial tensions were useful, that's all.

                2. Man, you sure read a quite a bit that's not there, but oddly don't see what is prima facia there often enough either. I'm not saying that Obama was an anti-white racist. I don't think he was, being a mulatto himself and raised by his grandmother, he understood white America more than the average black man. I said that he was racially divisive and that in his rhetoric he blamed whitey for black America's problems.

                  1. mulatto
                    he blamed whitey

                    You really got your undercutting your racial objectivity rhetoric down.

                    1. Oh no, the word police lights are blazing and the siren blaring. I'll come out with my hands up. I surrender, I surrender.

                    2. Call it a heuristic.

              2. "I am outraged by the comments that were made and saddened by the spectacle that we saw yesterday ... The person that I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago. His comments were not only divisive and destructive, but I believe that they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate, and I believe that they do not portray accurately the perspective of the black church. They certainly don't portray accurately my values and beliefs. And if Reverend Wright thinks that that's political posturing, as he put it, then he doesn't know me very well. And based on his remarks yesterday, well, I may not know him as well as I thought either. ... What became clear to me is that he was presenting a world view that contradicts who I am and what I stand for, and what I think particularly angered me was his suggestion somehow that my previous denunciation of his remarks were somehow political posturing. Anybody who knows me and anybody who knows what I'm about knows that I am about trying to bridge gaps and I see the commonality in all people. ... [A]fter seeing Reverend Wright's performance, I felt as if there was a complete disregard for what the American people are going through and the need for them to rally together to solve these problems. ... [W]hatever relationship I had with Reverend Wright has changed, as a consequence of this."

                1. It got crowded under that bus at times, didn't it?

                  1. A phenomenal example of the 'well...nevertheless' style of pushing through getting owned.

                2. Didn't stop him from sitting in the pews of his church for 20 years.

      3. If Mother Jones was writing a biased article I imagine it would suggest that Trump led to more racism, rather than less.

    2. Tobama’s election led by to the migration o CBC a significant racist element of the Democratic Party to the gop, and led to Republicans who prioritize racial liberalism to do th ppl site, shifting the composition of both thparties.

      1. Given the speed of that switch, that's actually probably a better analysis than given in the article.

      2. Except the exodus of southerners began during the 2nd Reagan administration and excelled during Clinton.

        Most racist segregationist did NOT migrate to the GOP, they died and died Democrat.

        Your "facts" are in error.

        1. Segregationists is not what Prof. Bernstein was talking about though.

          1. Any supposed groupings of racists would also include those who fought for segregation, thus I included them in my statement.

            There was NO great racist migration (pretty sure the black racists stayed put.)

            1. I want to be clear - our discussion here isn't about the Southern Strategy, it's about 2008.

              So how do you explain the numbers?

              1. Which numbers exactly?

                To also be clear, I contest the idea that there was a large shift of racists to the GOP. There are racists in BOTH parties and while the GOP has its share of Steve Kings around the country (and Jesse Helms in prior days,) the Democrat OPENLY practice racial politics, no dog whistle whisperers required.

                I find racial attitude surveys almost useless as the questions are leading and can be misunderstood. (Black men would say "yes" they were open to interracial relationships for themselves, but many would answer otherwise if the subject was WM/BW.)

                So you just deny that the question asked is probative of anything?

                Your attempt to conflate racial politics with racism is noted. It's a tired talking point, and begging the question does not make it look any better.

                Dog whistles are needed for actual racism and not policies that are based on race because one has near universal social opprobrium while the other is accepted, albeit with grumbling about anti-white racism.

                1. Telling a black audience "back in chains" is a play for straight-up race-hatred and is NOTHING but divisive. It is idiotic, obviously a lie and worse than anything Trump has said so far. And Trump is an asshole!

                  You just don't give a shit because of the political power gained.

                  If you cannot condemn ALL racism then you don't give a damn about racism at all.

                  1. You sure do know my motives, and my thoughts about Biden. And what I think racism is.

                    When you end up having to resort to preemptive telepathy to condemn the person your arguing with, in order to not engage with his comment?
                    Not a great sign for your argument.

                    1. Do enlighten us.

                      I condemn ALL racism: anti-black, anti-white and anti-Asian and anti-Jewish. Period, Full-Stop.

                      I invite you to do the same.

                    2. Condemning all racists, but then insisting that's gotta mean segregationists, and that therefore none moved from the Dems to the GOP...I'm sure you think you're taking a brave stand, but it all looks pretty bog-standard partisan to me.

                      I suspect our definitions of racism differ, but while I've got my atavistic pattern-following impulses, rest assured I do my best.

                      And yeah, Biden sucks. On race as well, despite his poll numbers among blacks. If he were black, I'd still not be happy with that kind of statement.
                      Saying it's worse than anything Trump ever said is laughable though. Trump's invasion mantra alone blows that out of the water.

                    3. You're the one defending Democratic racism, asshole.

                    4. What are you doing about Trump, then?

                      This post is about Trump. That you keep coming in and yelling it doesn't matter because Dems Dems Dems shows y'all got nothin'.

      3. Sorry for all the typos. From the data I've seen, before Obama the percentage of whites who were racist was relatively low in both parties, but was about equal in both parties (a function in part of the Democrats being the party of low-income whites). But Obama drove all the hardcore racists out of the Democratic Party b/c they could not countenance a black president, and some very racially liberal white Republicans were drawn to the Democrats for the opposite reason. So at least some of the increase in Republican racism, maybe all of it (I haven't looked closely at the data) during the Obama years was attributable to people switching parties, not to existing Republicans becoming more intolerant.

        1. David, that is some amazingly DUMB analysis. In the 1st progressive era the Democrat coalition contained over 70% of blacks (that could vote) AND the virulent white racists that oppressed them AND the planned parenthood types that sought to wipe them out. And most of these racist whites stayed EVEN after the party passed the 64/65 bills.

          "The One" ... ain't the one.

          Much the same way the modern progressive Democrat coalition contains 80 plus percent of Jews AND the Muslims that want to wipe THEM out.

          The more things change ...

          1. He's talking about 2008.

            He's also not talking about the Jews.

            1. If we're going to talk about racist, lets talk about ALL racists INCLUDING the racist Obama himself.

        2. Sarc, I noticed that you failed to condemn ALL racism.

          Noted ...

          And as slavery is pretty much agreed upon as the greatest of America's (and everywhere else's) sins, yeah, nah.

          Damn Biden and everyone else that failed to call him and Obama out on that crap.

        3. David,

          The trouble with your analysis is that the overall level of racism shows roughly the same pattern as the level among Republicans - an increase during the Obama years followed by a resumption of the long-term decline thereafter.

          If you were correct that the patterns reflected shifting party allegiances rather than shifting overall attitudes the composite line on Figure 1 would have continued downward during Obama's Presidency.

          1. Drum's chart is based on one, somewhat ambiguous question. The data I'm referring to involved indisputably hard-core racists, the sort of people who would never vote for a black candidate for president or approve of an interracial marriage.

            1. Is that data in the paper?

              1. No, just some poli sci papers I read a while back, that I noted by didn't make a note of.

  6. GREAT!

    Love the trend and it falls in-line with exactly what I (and RAK) have been saying: the US is on a long-term trend toward liberal progressivism.

    Sure the trend isn't linear and there will be some setbacks.

    But overall the trend is onwards and upwards!

    Can we now get the rest of the racist, bigoted assholes to get on board too?

    1. I'd say you're off to a rockin' good start with your last sentence.

    2. I have no racial animosity whatsoever. However, it is my view that progressivism is as a whole a bad set of dead-end policies that will beggar us while not actually solving the intended problems.

      Please don't present two unrelated issues as a dichotomy.

    3. The racist bigoted assholes are largely progressives, fucko.

  7. Lies, damned lies, and statistics. Sometimes the average is not what you're interested in.

  8. white Americans' expressed anti-Black and anti-Hispanic

    This biased capitalization always annoys me. Hispanic, yes; Caucasion, yes; Negro yes. They all at least pretend to be pseudo-scientific. But white and black are just colors, and not very accurate at that.
    Bigots who capitalize one and not the other show something -- guilt? butt hurt? -- but it sure ain't fairness.

    I can be as petty as them. At least I don't pretend I am trying to shake off my white privelege.

  9. A "study" by students.

    Just because we call them the social "sciences" [or use psuedo scientific jargon like "13-wave" or "thermostatically"], doesn't mean its actually science.

    1. STEMlords assemble!
      Make sure you don't actually read any social science before you condemn it - the best condemnations are blindly based on a reputation from talking to other STEMlords! The system must be kept clean!

      I was similarly iffy on the field a year ago. Then I started having to read papers and see presentations on social science for work. It's a legit field, just not as predictive as physics. (Which is having it's own problems these days, anyhow)

      1. STEMlord?

        Physical scientists are extremely useful technicians, nothing more.

        Social "scientists" are on a par with alchemists.

        1. STEMlords see the supremacy of their discipline, and the foolishness of all others.

          Alchemy was pretty scientific - the periodic table didn't come out of Mendeleev's mind whole cloth.

          And social science has proven pretty useful in lots of ways. Disaster response, public health, finance, program management, artificial intelligence design, human-machine teaming, risk management...

          1. "Alchemy was pretty scientific"

            Its how I get all my gold.

            "Phrenology was pretty scientific"

            "Astrology was pretty scientific"

            1. A pie-in-the-sky motivating end-goal does not make an inquiry unscientific.

              Alchemy was great at cataloging if-thens of substance interactions. That built the foundation that Mendeleev used to create the periodic table transmuting alchemy into chemistry in one fel swoop.

              It's not like phrenology or astrology at all.

              1. It's a cold day in hell, but I find myself defending Sarc. While astrology is bunk in that the movement of rocks in space don't change my love life (unless they change Earth's orbit or something) they astrologers were the first to chart the movement of the heavens and gave us an enduring wonder in Stonehenge. Galileo was a court astrologer.

                Alchemy was merely the precursor to chemistry, as Sarc notes.

                Phrenology? Not so much, but the idea that human features affect personality can finally be somewhat tested with AI and double blind studies, and as such, there is some there there to physiognomy. One example, is the wide jaw in men denoting high testosterone (as determined by tests) means women find said man more attractive.

                So in short, just because at one time all you could say was "hot, warm, or cold" and then we created thermometers, doesn't mean those initial measurements are wrong. Plus, there is always the scientific paradigm shift.

                That said, I think the issue Bob has with the social sciences is liberal academia, which is a separate topic. And that said, Sarc should apply the same standards of intrinsic worth to or historical scientific roots to our social, political, and cultural systems.

                1. All pseudosciences are vaguely related to real science. Its what makes them seemingly plausible.

                  So the fact alchemy and chemistry share some traits is meaningless.

                  Same for astronomy and astrology.

                  1. Alchemy BECAME chemistry.

                    Phrenology became nothing. Astrology is still around - again, it became nothing.

                  2. Science is nothing but a process, I hope you know this. The difference between psuedoscience and science is grayer than you think. Just because you can dismiss UFO-ology doesn't mean we can't and don't seek to identify unidentified objects in the atmosphere and space.

                    Your better off thinking of the social sciences like Economics, where the difference between the Austrian school and Keynesian schools of thought are more stark, and everyone knows generally where the researcher is coming from, and everyone tries to use the best data available to make their case. The issue, is that there isn't, generally speaking, a conservative voice in academia and a disciple filled with liberals views itself as the sole voice for that subject matter. Sociology is the worst at this, btw, followed closely by anthropology.

                    We are all just telling stories, some of us with better data.

              2. "Alchemists attempted to purify, mature, and perfect certain materials.[2][4][5][n 1] Common aims were chrysopoeia, the transmutation of "base metals" (e.g., lead) into "noble metals" (particularly gold);[2] the creation of an elixir of immortality;[2] the creation of panaceas able to cure any disease; and the development of an alkahest, a universal solvent.[6] " [wikipedia]

                Sure seems like Real Science!

                1. Yeah, it was early science, and mistaken in many things. But science is a process, and it's a process of testing hypothesis and rejecting ones that didn't work.

                  You can't demand that you start the journey at your destination.

                  1. Well, maybe social sciences will amount to something in another 300 years or so.

                    1. It's not like chemical reactions only became useful once the periodic table came on the scene.
                      Alchemy and it's if-then predictiveness did provide for some applications before there was an underlying theory.

                      Social science has lots of applications even now, as I noted above. Do you think all the people looking at it as a guide are wrong and only you see it, Bob?

                    2. "Do you think all the people looking at it as a guide are wrong and only you see it, Bob?"

                      I am not the only person who is dismissive of social science as actual science. Its a view shared by many.

                      I didn't realize alchemy had such passionate defenders though.

                    3. Yes, uniformed hard science people do tend to not like social science - I was one of those myself this time last year.

                      But hey, if the market likes it, it must have some merit, right? You calling the market wrong?

                    4. The main problem social science has is a terrifying lack of rigor. Science without rigor is nothing.

                      And real sciences laugh at calling findings significant at just one or two standard deviations, where you'll get a false confirmation one time in twenty.

                      Could social science become a real science? Sure, nothing inherent about the field makes it impossible. But I don't see it happening any time soon, for a lot of reasons.

                    5. I'm not sure you're speaking from experience either, Brett.

                      I've gone to social science reviews. It's got rigor. It's got it's fights over methodologies. It's got peer reviews just like the hard sciences.
                      Don't confuse rigor for metrics. Just because it's not a square peg doesn't mean it's not science.

                      Didn't you link me a child development study in another thread? That seemed rigorous to you...

                    6. "hard science people"

                      That does not describe me.

                      I am however informed and make an informed analysis that social science is largely useless and is not really science.

                      "if the market likes it, it must have some merit, right? "

                      Social sciences exist because of government and colleges, foundations and other nonprofits. The market has very little to do with them.

                    7. How did you inform yourself? It doesn't appear to have involved speaking to any social scientists.

                    8. Silicon Valley and the financial sector both make heavy use of social science. Look it up.

                      I'm not sure you've really taken the effort to be all that informed, actually.

    2. Well, this is based on the General Social Survey, which actually is a long-running and well administered nationwide survey that has been running for 40 years.

      The survey itself is done independently of the results that are drawn from people that use the data. While you can question what Mother Jones says about the data, the gathering of the data itself is pretty fair, impartial, and has been accurate in the past.

  10. Not surprised that Trump's racism has (apparently) led to greater aversion to racism by whites who do not wish to be identified with such attitudes.

    Also not surprised by the career clingers here who claim that Obama was a divisive racist by daring to empathize with people who are not conservative Christian right wing Republican straight white American males.

    1. Asshole leftist assumes what it wants to prove, film at 11.

  11. Hearing someone use rude and excessive profanity on the street corner does not make one more likely to swear. Were it otherwise, censors and hecklers might be effective at suppressing speech. Similarly, hearing the President use wild and divisive rhetoric does not make one more likely to think those things.

    Free speech advocates can take solace that people are responding to the noise and rhetoric around them the same way they always have - probably by tuning it out. The same way they they tune out commercials and sales calls.

    That said, when the left makes everything racist nothing is racist. No matter what the President says, the left inevitably goes overboard and then the gaslighter-in-chief says something like "I think if you look at what I said, I did not say that. I dont condone ___" Then the left looks like complete idiots to people in the center.

  12. This proves that Trump is so bad as to make many racists repent in sackcloth and ashes, but the proof of their sincerity is if they make reparation for their sins by voting for Democrats.

  13. Prejudice has declined among White Americans since Trump's Election, . . .
    Prejudice may have declined among White Americans but since before Trump's election the democrats, liberals, socialists and Trump haters have been fanning hate just to get out of office. This group has caused more trouble than any other group because their rhetoric. And the ferocity of their attacks have increased every month since then. Trump is only one yet those on the other side has been most of the elected democrats and about 90% of the press and a good portion of the population as well as the socialist and progressives. With almost all of the 24/7 news channels harping about Trump 24 a day and 7 days a week, always put Trump is the worst person that ever lived including such as Hitler. But the haters will not that idea every get started or continued.

  14. How about a similar study of racism against whites by liberals and liberal activists? I'm willing to bet that the levels would have skyrocketed after Trump's election. After all, the real definition of racism is treating all people of a certain color the same way. Whites are not exempt from the definition any more than any of the other colored races.

  15. "They bring a knife, we bring a gun"

  16. Racism is judging folks by the color of ones skin. I contend we have seen no increase in white racism. However, we have seen a dramatic increase in racism towards whites.

    I can find articles by the dozen daily demonizing whites and in particular white males. Assigning all kind of evil attributes just because of their skin color. I searched to day Google past 24 hours and could find zero news articles demonizing blacks based on their skin color.

    1. Referring to a person as "white" is in and of itself a racial slur.

    2. You'll even see these racists claim it's impossible to be racist towards whites. Denial, not just a river in Egypt.

  17. Also the Charlottesville “Fine People” Hoax is just absurd. Actually Scot Adams the Dilbert guy has a great analysis of it and how folks hang onto an obvious hoax so tenaciously.

  18. This is a severely limited survey. It only attempts to measure racism by white people against blacks or hispanics.

    They only list one question to determine racism, which as is follows.

    ““Now we would like to ask about a separate topic. Some people feel that the government in Washington should make every effort to improve the social and economic position of blacks. (Suppose these people are at one end of a scale, at point 1.) Others feel that the government should not make any special effort to help blacks because they should help themselves.”

    So it you don't think the government should make a "special" effort on behalf of blacks, which could be defined as contract set asides for minorities, or affirmative action in hiring and admissions, you're labeled a racist according these researches.

    1. "So it you don’t think the government should make a “special” effort on behalf of blacks, ... , you’re labeled a racist according these researche[r]s."

      I don't see where the authors label such people as racists. But it *does* seem odd that to gauge racial resentment, they would choose a question which explicitly places a *race-neutral* position at one end of the scale (at "point 7", which is the opposite end of their scale from the "every effort" position).

      Footnote 6 asserts that "This question is commonly included in racial resentment batteries"; but even if this is true, unless I'm very confused it in no way excuses their bizarre question design (rather it just adds to the bizarreness).

  19. "Prejudice has declined among White Americans since Trump's Election, Study Shows"

    So, if this is a thing that can be measured, I wonder how "white Americans" stack up against other identifiable demographic groups? I mean, as long as we're doing this kind of thing.

    I would venture a guess that "white Americans" could very well be the LEAST prejudiced of any major or minor racial/geographical demographic group.

  20. FBI hate crime statistics disagree.

  21. Yeah likely story. We have LIterally Hitler in office. This is just like what Nazi Germany was like in the 1930's. Don't believe me? Just ask Bernie Sanders. He knows. He was alive then.

    Just the other day there was a black man in handcuffs photoed in Texas. Yeah just read that again. A black Texas. Obviously the Klan was at work there.

    And white supremacists are EVERYWHERE. They are shooting up everything and people of color aren't safe even in their own homes. I mean come on El Paso folks. We all know Literally Hitler made that happen. And that whole Ohio shooting. El Paso people! That guy didn't like Hispanics. And we all know that is because of Literally Hitler in office.

    The author is obviously a racist just for posting this. He probably also voted for Literally Hitler.

    1. Dude was on a leash and in handcuffs. Why the heck would you leash anyone?
      And in this age of smart phones, how dumb do you have to be to leash a black man behind a horse?!

      El Paso cited white supremacy for his motivation. Dayton was just liberal and his motives seem more personal.

      Nice sarcasm though, points for style, if not substance.

      1. I'm not a expert but last time I saw a leash applied it was to a collar that was placed on an animals neck. That was just a rope attached to handcuffs presumably so the guy wouldn't run away. Would you have preferred if they would have put him on the horse and the cop walked next to it? Or maybe not everyone is thinking about becoming the outrage of the day for simply doing their job in getting an arrestee to be processed as quickly as possible so he doesn't have to sit in handcuffs on the street for an hour or two so a paddy wagon can swing on by to take him in a more politically correct fashion.

        But I am sure none of this was the real reason. Obviously those cops were in the Klan.

        1. Maybe don't use mounted police to arrest people. That's not what their general purpose is anyhow.

          1. So if the purpose of police on horses is not the enforce the law then what is it? Please do tell law enforcement expert.

            1. He’s a moron so you’re wasting your time

              1. Well that is obvious given that he can't answer a simple question. I'm quite sure the last thing two cops arresting a guy for some routine crimes thought was "gee...I hope the manner in which we are escorting this gentleman to jail is not objected to by a liberal from New York on the internet who then uses the enabling media to turn it into the faux outrage of the day..."

  22. Biden The leading Dem candidate’s one trick pony is the Charlottesville Hoax

    Apparently the “ list” of Trump’s racism is a hoax

  23. The left's reaction to Trump just proves why races can't get along. Strife and warfare is baked into the diversity cake.

  24. A problem with this approach is that it assumes that the entire issue is based on what the majority thinks. A vocal and aggressive minority can have much more impact than a tepid majority.

    For example, it’s entirely possible that throughout the period of the Nazi regime, there was never a majority of Germans who were especially prejudiced against Jews. The Nazi party itself was a minority party that had never won a majority in a fair election, and many of its electoral supporters did so not because they approved of its platform but because they thought the alternatives worse. But this fact would obviously be of no comfort since the majority had no impact on policy regardless of their opinions.

    An aggressive minority can do less in a country like the United States. But it can do a lot, including things like mass shootings.

    A second problem is concern that people may not always answer polls about sensitive issues accurately and may tell people what they think they want to hear. Polls predicted Trump would lose the 2016 election.

  25. What about the racism and racist rhetoric of past administrations? Did racial prejudice increase or decrease from 2008-2016? What about 2000-2008? Is this a general trend of decreasing "white racial prejudice" or is President Trump actually decreasing white racial prejudice?

    What about non-white Americans? Have their prejudices increased as a result of President Trump being in office? Coupled with point 1, is this prejudice increasing or decreasing over time?

  26. Rush Limbaugh " I oppose Obama because of his policies as he has stated them." Democrats response, you filthy racist!

  27. Democrats are modern fascists and would eagerly bring on the New Reich.

Please to post comments