The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
A Brief Observation about a Changing America
As part of my book publicity duties, I have appeared on a whole bunch of radio shows and podcasts, some of which can be fairly called "right-wing." One thing that I have noted is that when I give my typical shpiel about how American racial classifications are becoming almost entirely incoherent thanks to intergroup dating, marriage, and procreation, the host almost always starts talking about his own family, whether it be a Hispanic wife, half-black nephews, half-Asian cousins, or whatever. And of course, some of the hosts, even the "right-wing" ones, are themselves of full or partial black, Asian, or Hispanic descent. This, in short, is a very different America than fifty or even twenty years ago.
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 Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
?♂️
"This, in short, is a very different America than fifty or even twenty years ago."
...and it continues to move in that direction.
Odd how so many white people with non-white relatives still vote Republican. Or do they?
In my experience the only solid Republican places are all white.
You need to get out of your cocoon.
I live in a multiracial neighborhood and, like almost any multiracial place, we overwhelmingly vote Democratic.
That's an artifact of the Democratic party having captured the black vote some decades back; Republicans only offered legal equality, Democrats offered racial preferences, (And had a track record of delivering on such promises.) so Republicans got outbid.
The artifact will go away as blacks finally wake to what a poisoned bargain that really was.
Republicans only offered legal equality
Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence!
If by "some decades back", you mean, "the 1930s". FDR won the black vote by dedicating some of the New Deal works programs to helping blacks, even as they were excluded from the larger and more beneficial programs.
There's a reason blacks in the South still voted Democrat, even as Jim Crow was in full swing. Only 30-40% of black voters voted Republican, even leading into the 1960s.
"Republicans only offered legal equality"
Where "legal equality" = segregated proms, race-targeting voter suppression, "states' rights," Jesse Helms ads, "law and order" (driving while black, abusive policing, Willie Horton, etc.), segregationist candidates, the Southern Strategy . . .
You seem to be describing the pre-civil rights act South which was controlled by Democrats who fought tooth and nail (including a 54 day fillibuster.
President Johnson saw it differently when he proclaimed “I'll have them niggers voting Democratic for the next two hundred years."
Segregated proms occurred within the past few years. Race-targeting voter suppression will continue next week. Abusive, race-aimed policing won't wait that long. Tommy Tuberville is an able successor to Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond.
And beat Alabama more than either combined
Given the Republican Party's embrace of white nationalism, (which includes the curious notion that black people voting for the party that treats them like a part of the population that deserves political representation means they are on a 'plantation' or have been 'bought' - there is no serious effort to win black noters there) that seems unlikely.
"Like almost any multiracial place, we overwhelmingly vote Democratic."
Generally speaking, that isn't true. If you take a multiracial place, like Brewster County, Texas, you'll find that it voted Republican. It you look at its next door neighbor, Presidio county, that voted Democratic. Arguably Brewster is more multiracial (if only because Presidio is 80%+ Hispanic, while Brewster is just 42% Hispanic). Or you can get a place like Jefferson County (37% - 32% - 22% White - Black - Hispanic) which also voted Republican in 2020.
What you're really observing is "College Educated" multiracial areas. Or Urban multiracial areas. That increasingly is the divide being observed, a "college-educated" Democratic class versus a "non-college educated" Republican class.
Those two groups have different priorities, and different interests. I suspect what you'll find is minorities increasingly trending away from Democrats, especially those who aren't college educated, as their interests are ignored.
How long did it take you to find this one town in Texas?
I don’t know if there are confounding factors like urbanization or the like making the causation less than clear, but your example is even thinner in it’s materiality to the thesis.
1) County, not town. Your ignorance is showing.
2) All of 5 seconds. Looked for a rural, racially diverse county. Texas has many of them.
Yet again you missed the point of my comment. You picked an idiosyncratic counterexample to thesis where a counterexample doesn’t apply.
You continue to be amazingly bad at arguing.
Oh, my, this comment almost made me split my sides.
Specifically, he provided several counter-examples to CC's claim that multiracial "places" vote overwhelmingly Democratic.
Considering CC provided nothing to back up his claim in the first place (even basic Census data doesn't support it), AL has done a decent job of refuting the claim.
In what way do you think that providing a several examples that someone's claim is incorrect does not apply to pointing out that the claim is incorrect?
Yeah... Sarcastro just seems to have lost it again.
Sometimes you're just better off not arguing. Sarcastro shouldn't have even tried.
Do you know how counterexample work? Noting ‘here is an exception’ to a claim that there are lots of a thing does not mean there are not lots of a thing.
Professor of statistics…Ok, chief.
A counter-example is literally noting an exception, so, yeah, I think he does.
Exceptions don’t touch a thesis that isn’t superlative, Brett.
Hm, I wonder why Sarcastro isn't taking any effort to point out the much-more ridiculous argument that "my experience in one town location proves an overwhelming similarity in all locations"
tkamenick - You mean like when I said 'I don’t know if there are confounding factors like urbanization or the like making the causation less than clear, but your example is even thinner in it’s materiality to the thesis?"
You're struggling here Sarcastro. More than you normally do.
Calling counties "towns". Bad grammar ("it’s materiality" Really?). Now it seems like you don't even know what arguments you're actually responding to. You never responded to captcrisis in this thread and the argument tkamenick mentions.
Maybe you should just take a mulligan here.
CC provided zero evidence that his claims that something happened in "almost any" multiracial neighborhood, relying instead on one personal anecdote.
AL provided quick and easy to find counterexamples.
You seem to be suggesting that counterexamples cannot disprove the no-evidence claim by CC, because he didn't say that 100% vote the way his anecdote suggests. If a couple of counterexamples, of counties (not your falsely-claimed 'towns'), aren't enough how many would you demand? Would 10 be enough? Would 100? Or would you keep playing this stupid semantics game even after 100,000 counterexamples were presented? If he was shown to be wrong in 99.99999% of "places", would you still claim that counter-examples can't disprove his claim because it isn't "superlative" (which does not mean 100%, complete, or exhaustive, by the way)?
That's not an argument, Sarcastro. It's not even a fallacy. It's just idiotic.
An argument is what CC presented, and what AL refuted. You have not managed to do nearly as much - your only attempt was the fallacy of ignorance - "Oh, there may be other factors, which no one mentioned, therefore CC is right and AL is wrong because Sarcastro doesn't know anything!"
And what the hell do you think statistics has anything to do with the arguments presented here, you ignorant buffoon? Do you see my trying to use my stats teaching experience here? No, because it isn't relevant. You bringing it up, in another stupid and off-topic failed attempt to be insulting, is just another way you reveal how absolutely incapable you are formulating anything resembling a logical thought. I can, and have, gotten better arguments from a 4 year old, who thinks that calling someone a "poo-poo head" trumps anything.
Just looking at the (slightly outdated) data, there hasn't been much of a change in trend in racial linkage to party affiliation over the last couple of decades (although the Trump effect may have been to push some Republican racial minorities into the "independent" bucket):
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/03/20/1-trends-in-party-affiliation-among-demographic-groups/
Having said that, I do think it's correct to be focusing on Urban vs. Rural, as population density has become almost the overwhelming differentiator in party preference. There's been a big shift tied to educational attainment as well, but I suspect that is actually pretty tied to population density as well (i.e., even in relatively more rural states you'll find more of the college educated folks in what cities there are).
I notice that data ends in 2017. Five years ago. IOW, it provides literally zero clue as to any effect Trump might have had.
Even this data is a bit dated at this point. But the story it appears to be telling is that both parties are losing ground to independents, and have been since the turn of the century.
I think you're right that the biggest factor here is actually the rural/urban divide. People reliably adopt different politics at different population densities. It explains most of our politics, I think.
Trump did better with Black and Hispanic Americans, compared to Romney and most Republicans in general. Also WaPo, 10/25/22: The Latino vote shifted toward Republicans in 2020. Will it again?
+1 No one I know voted for Nixon.
To be fair, that statement becomes more and more plausible over time. I mean, the guy last ran for office 50 years ago!
I live in a multiracial neighborhood and a crowd of us vote conservative, i. e., not Democrat. To vote D here is to deviate from the messages and warnings of the Founders, agree to open borders and consequent torrents of drug flow and drug gangs (such as a ton of fentanyl and tons of methamphetamines) and human trafficking (especially underage girls), give a nod to toxic inflation, abandon the Bill of Rights, deceive and fleece the middle class and the poor, give your blessing to government spending orgies, install abortion on demand all the way up to the day of birth, encourage violent crime and widespread grand larceny, ignore settled law such as 1A and 2A, and to corrupt the very roots of a civilized society.
You should get out more.
As a couple of examples, non-hispanic whites are only 41% of Texas' population, whereas in Marin County California, one of the most progressive places on the planet the non-hispanic Whites are at 85%. and Biden got 82% of the vote in 2020.
Pauline Kael, is that you?
Those who had gay close friends/family members were more likely to support legalizing gay marriage.
Those living in high crime areas are more likely to support gun control.
Those living in highly polluted areas are more likely to support stricter environmental regulation.
Those living near terrorist targets were more likely to oppose the Patriot Act.
Those who have Hispanic or Muslim friends or neighbors were more likely to oppose Trump's border and immigration policies.
Those with black friends, neighbors, family members are more likely to support "Black Lives Matter".
I see a pattern here. Do you?
Should've scrolled just a little farther down.
That is both astonishingly racist and an admission of your ignorance of the people you claim to know well enough to disagree with.
Capcrisis, MAGA, which is not Republican, is racially neutral. We really don't care.
Excepting when interracial couples appear on TV.
And the Great Replacement.
And in general the persecution of straight white males by liberals.
Your experience is wrong because the stats show that many who vote Republican (eg when Hillary ran) were doing so very reluctantly and out of profound distaste for Hillary.
Pretty much all my Vietnamese relatives vote Republican. But I guess they're "white adjacent" so they don't count.
This right-wing blog remains remarkably white and odds-defyingly male, though.
And white nationalists continue to embrace and populate the right-wing electoral coalition.
You prefer white females instead?
(Of course, this is an entirely separate question on whether if females (white or otherwise) prefer you.)
For readers interested in this topic.
Thayendanegea (which can be translated as "he who places two bets" or "two sticks bound together for strength") born in 1742 son of Peter and Margaret Tehonwaghkwangearahkwa of the Mohawk Tribe was known as Joseph Brant who worked with the British army against the Americans during the American Revolution. Brandt had three wives one an assimilated slave from Va. and 9 children. Several daughters married British soldiers. Brant had an ancestor who visited Queen Elizabeth in 1710 and one of his descendants became Mohawk chief.
There was no Queen Elizabeth in 1710 -- at least not in England.
You are correct, the source is erroneous. Brant's grandfather "Sagayendwarahton ("Old Smoke") was one of the Four Mohawk Kings to visit England in 1710." (Wiki) The Monarch was Queen Anne.
So the lesson here is that nobody is racist, because everybody has a black cousin or neighbour?
Well, if the theory that Homo sapiens originated in Africa is true, then I guess that is the case.
That just switches the theory to grounds it never purported to stand in. Case dismissed
No, I think the lesson is the racial lines in America are becoming far less clear cut.
Isn't that what the Great Replacement Thingy is all about?
Well one lesson is that you have no problem with coming up with absurd straw men to knock down.
LOL.
Just think of Martinned as Sarcastr0 on easy mode.
Careful. You could get canceled for saying the Great Replacement is real.
It used to be that people could brandish their anti-white credentials by saying "some of my best friends are ...". Now they have to be related to the non-whites.
As Steven Van Zandt tunefully observed, some things just don't change.
OP posts hopeful though about racial differences becoming less important in America over time.
The zealots jump in and start pounding each other over racial differences.
Y’all are really, really pathetic.
Well, if television commercials are a reflection of the current state of affairs on inter racial relationships real racism is dying quickly. Same for same sex relationships being main stream.
For some reason, tv ads with interracial couples seem to be a major focus of MAGA.
troll better
NO, you mix up a political and a moral issue. Surely you know many who support same-sex marriage who consider homosexuality a perversion and disgusting.
"This, in short, is a very different America than fifty or even twenty years ago."
YA THINK?
Jeez-us, MOTO (Master of the Obvious) much? It's almost like 10 years ago we had a POTUS who wasn't entirely for Same-Sex-Marriage and now we do,
Frank "Didya ever notice there's a full moon every month?"
I'm surprised that "white" is the racial categorization embracing the most diverse group. Could the more exclusive groups learn a thing or two from the "white" population?
Kidding aside, the "white" population was the first to outlaw slavery (whereas some groups outlawed slavery only in 1985 and largely ceased the practice only two years ago, if ever). Diversity does help the totality: without the diverse "white" population, where would those in other categories be?
I thought legislatures, not groups, outlawed things.
I suppose, trivially, a legislature IS a group.
what you get for thinking when your not used to it
You'd think white people created slavery solely so they could claim credit for abolishing it, to paraphrase someone-or-other.
You'd think that anyone who thinks white people created slavery is an ignoramus who should not be posting here.
That's the poi- oh, never mind.
“And of course, some of the hosts, even the “right-wing” ones, are themselves of full or partial black, Asian, or Hispanic descent”
*Even* the right-wing ones?
Maybe good ideas, like bad ones, are not the monopoly of particular races.
Aayan Hirsi Ali comes to mind as a refutation of your main point.
Fully one race and one birth religion but opposes bad ideas you would call good,
Bless your heart, I'm not sure I understand your point.
Even under HItler and the Reconstruction Democrats, the classification octaroon or quadroon was based on the parents or grandparents being fully 100% black or white straight back to Adam and Eve ....
It's a rather cranky and backwards way of celebrating diversity - thanks to increasing diversity, soon there will be no diversity at all!
No, diversity is when the uniqueness of every human is not based on someone else assigning weights to what makes you you.
So, Clarence Thomas is an older Southern Catholic Black Conservative
And Ketanji is a younger non-Catholic Black
Now under your view of diversity, pure bigotry calls Clarence a Catholic and Ketanji a Black.
Under my view? I’m applauding the recognition of the rich complexity of human diversity. Bernstein seems to think there’s a point where diversity will blend into one big homogenous mass, and that then there will be equality, or an end to racism, or something. But the source of inequality and/or racism is not diversity, or the recognition of diversity or the celebration of diversity – the source is wealth disparity, exploitation, prejudice, historical events and other things which arise from social, cultural and economic conditions. Suddenly noticing that cateegories like ‘Asians’ conceals a huge range of often highly disparate ethnicities and cultures as well as an intermingling of same – something people within and around those categories already knew, thanks Prof – isn’t going to do much about those.
Well, the experience of European immigrants in America suggests reason for hope otherwise. You don't see a lot of Americans concerned with Irish background vs. Polish vs. Italian vs. Swedish anymore. When I was growing up, Polish jokes were a common thing. I don't recall hearing one in decades — not because they're politically incorrect, but because people don't really think about European-Americans that way anymore.
On the open thread last week I commented on the root of US political dysfunction being the abandonment of the central founding principle of decentralized self-government. The leftists replied that actually, the problem is the bad White People who are trying to prevent minorities from adopting socialism and other changes or something...I'll just have to quote it, "The problems are due to the loss of perceived status by a diminishing percentage of White Americans desperate to prevent the rising majority from changing things they value through the democratic process."
So, the millions of conservatives who are Black, Hispanic or otherwise would seem to be a problem for this carefully fabricated, deeply delusional and anti-reality narrative.
I now understand why the left's most unhinged vitriol and warfare is reserved for black conservatives, it's because their mere existence tends to challenge their extremely fragile neomarxist mythology.
For example numerous polls from different pollsters show that Black and Hispanic Americans are much more supportive of stricter immigration enforcement, and of reducing legal immigration, than whites are, since it is a straightforward working class issue that immigration tends to lower wages and raise costs of living. Leftists can't wrap their head around that. But perspectives on such things are rarely data-driven and have more to do with life experience, many people live in bubbles of various sorts.
For Jews, who are a people and a religion, it certainly does. Pew's studies of Jews include everyone who has at least one Jewish parent, considers himself at least part-Jewish, and doesn't practice a different religion. So it's data includes someone with an entirely assimilated ethnically Jewish father, a Christian mother, who was raised Christian, doesn't practice Judaism in any way or have any significant ties to the Jewish community, but tells the researcher that he is a "half-Jewish atheist." This individual is really not meaningfully Jewish in any way, except regarding a vestigial knowledge of Jewish ancestry. But when putting together data on American Jews, he "counts" the same as a modern Orthodox yeshiva grad. This would be less problematic if these were stable populations, but the % of Jews by Pew criteria who fit the "not meaningfully Jewish" category has exploded in the last generation--in the past, there was less intermarriage, and people not raised Jewish with a Jewish parent were less likely to consider themselves Jewish at all, and there is a lot more atheism. This makes it extremely difficult to parse Pew's data. (This group, and less extreme versions of it, also make up a wildly disproportionate % of extreme anti-Israel folks who start their attacks with "As a Jew...")
Not at all if you go by the Hierarchy of Truths, something that is well-nigh universal. Jesus is the Son of God, and God is a Trinity.
While full immersion may or may not be the Truth all would accept Baptism and relegate any 'incoherence' to the 'not so important category"
The number of Russians and Ukrainians of dubious Jewishness coming to Israel is indeed a matter of controversy in Israel, though for the most part the debate is put in terms of their halachic status as Jews, whereas the more interesting issue is, e.g., people who have hired genealogy firms to find out if they have Jewish ancestry in the hopes of fleeing Russia for Israel, but until now had no "Jewish" connections. OTOH, a generation or two in Israel as "Jews," at least if the Orthodox establishment can be controlled, and the issue resolves itself.
A day late, but yesterday was 32 years since the murder of the great Meir Kahane.
Oy.
Troll better.
Smell better.
Wait, that was you sniffing my underwear?