Inductivist

You often see the argument that the central political divide is social class, not race and ethnicity. If this were true, then we should see it in voting patterns. 

The General Social Survey asked participants who they voted for in 2016, and they also asked about annual income and race. The results below are estimates from a logistic regression model that predicts 2016 voting for President with income and race. The three racial categories are white, black, and other race. Whites are the reference category and so are omitted from the model (sample size = 1,360).

From the p-values (probability) you can see that, once you adjust for race, REALINC (inflation-adjusted income) does not significantly predict who you voted for in 2016. By contrast, blacks and people of other non-white races were less likely than whites to vote for Trump, regardless of one's social class. 

Race trumps.  

I've always assumed that smart people are fascinated by politics. One complaint I have of social scientists is that they're so obsessed with politics, they can't conduct fair research. (But I can hear you saying, "You said SMART people.")  Anyway, is my assumption correct? Is it different for men and women?

The General Social Survey asked respondents: "How interested would you say you personally are in politics?" Answers ranged from 'very interested' to 'not at all interested.'  I measure IQ with a 10 question vocabulary quiz (sample size = 1,141):
















Look at how those scoring a perfect score on the test are much more interested in politics than any other group. To get precise, the correlation between the two variables is .20 -- a moderate relationship.

Now for the women (sample size = 1,507):



I separated by sex because I suspected that the rise in interest as one moves up the IQ scale might be sharper for men. My experience is that smart women are more interested in politics than less intelligent women, but I see more intensity among men.

The female pattern is similar to that for men. The correlation is slightly weaker -- .18. The gender gap is pretty visible at the highest IQ level: 16.8% of these women have little or no interest, compared to only 5.4% of the men.

According to an August 18th Gallup poll of registered voters, a head-to-head between Ron Paul and Obama gives Paul 45% and Obama 47%. (By the way, "don't knows" usually break for the challenger).

Wow.

Elites would never let Paul become President. If lack of financial support, media discrediting, or pinning a scandal on him failed to do the trick, somebody would put a bullet in his head.

At View From the Right, folks are surprised to see an Orthodox priest criticizing anyone who opposes the Ground Zero Mosque. No one should be surprised that even conservative faiths fail to produce conservative people. According to the GSS, only 28.6 percent of Orthodox Christians say they are conservative, compared to 34.1 percent of all Americans. This from a church that officially believes that women should not be allowed behind the iconostatis; that they should wear scarves in the sanctuary; and that women should wait 40 days after giving birth before re-entering the sanctuary.

Mainline churches are accomplices in the area of politics. Roman Catholics are as liberal as non-Catholics. Priests take their cues from the New York Times, not God. It's shameful.   

One gets the impression that Jews as a group are very interested in politics. To look at this more closely, I examined answers to a question from the World Values Survey about how often do you discuss politics when you are with your friends. I limited the analysis to any of the countries with at least 20 Jews in the sample. The table above shows that Jews might be a little more interested in politics than others, but the difference in most countries is not large, and the pattern is not universal.


UPDATE: The picture changes some when I look at the world sample all together (almost 200,000 respondents in many countries). The percent of the 1,723 surveyed Jews who discuss politics frequently is 30.5, compared to 15.1 percent of everyone else. (The number is skewed by Israel.)

Reader the Undiscovered Jew wondered if people interested in politics are actually more likely to vote. The connection might seem obvious, but I know folks who follow politics closely yet argue that voting is not rational because one ballot makes no difference.

The graph shows that as interest increases (higher numbers on the x-axis mean greater interest) so do the rates of actual voting.

The types of people interested in politics: I regressed one's level of interest in politics on the following predictors ( GSS data):


Standardized OLS regression coefficients (N = 611)

Male .14*
Age .14*
Size of place -.02
IQ .04
Years of education .17*
Occupational prestige .02
Family income .03
Church attendance .05
Conservatism .03
Trusts Congress .15*

* p < .05, two-tail test


At the bivariate level, interest in politics is positively correlated with IQ, educational level, occupational prestige, and income, but since all these predictors are intercorrelated, only education comes out statistically significant in the multivariate model.

So the picture of a politically interested person that emerges from the data is of an educated older man who has faith in the legislative process. A young uneducated woman who has no faith in the system is likely to be uninterested in politics.

What do these characteristics have in common? My guess would be a person who has developed the perspective of a leader. People who see themselves as responsible for the political system--a system they believe can work--are more interested in its management. Men, the educated, older people--they're more likely to feel part of the group that helps run things.

We saw in the earlier post that Jewish Americans and those of English descent are likely to feel part of that group, while Mexican Americans and Puerto Ricans do not. As a reader suggested, it might be an attitude carried over from the old country.

As a follow-up to the last post, I wanted to add that conservatives can draw on biological research without emphasizing evolution (Reader David expresses a similar idea). The point is that there is genetic diversity--whatever its source. It explains what nurturism cannot, and it's not going anywhere fast.

The graph shows two things: 1) a sizeable minority of Americans--I included all races--think that genes play a major role in determining personality; and 2) Republicans are a bit more open to the idea than Democrats. As the science continues to come out, conservatives would do well to sing the results from the rooftops. Leave Darwin out of it.


UPDATE: David Hume looks at belief in genes by demographic groups here.

Darwin, God, and politics: I see that the HBD-ers and social conservatives are currently duking it out. Since I consider myself to be both, I suppose I should punch myself in the face.

It seems to me that what is essential for a viable political movement is that it tells a persuasive, coherent story to a large segment of the population. I say coherent, but I didn't say something that was so internally tight, it must have been developed by Aristotle. Conservatism, I don't think, has ever claimed such internal consistency. It's more like a stance.

We can't all be Burkes. Someone needs to do the market research: I volunteer. This time around, let's look at the two Men who people seem to be siding with: God or Darwin. A movement needs to either: 1) favor a thing; 2) oppose it; or 3) shut up about it. The data indicate that in America, on the question of Darwin and God, it's probably best to shut up about both of them, but if we need someone to rally around, just make sure he's not Nietzsche.

In 2000, 1,023 Americans (GSS) were asked: 1) their confidence in the existence of God; and 2) how true is the statement that humans evolved from animals. Here are the top ten most common combinations of answers:


Percent of all respondents

1. Knows God exists--Evolution definitely not true 33.0
2. Knows God exists--Evolution probably true 14.7
3. Knows God exists--Evolution probably not true 11.5
4. Believes but doubts--Evolution probably true 7.7
5. Knows God exists--Evolution definitely true 5.8
6. Believes but doubts--Evolution probably not true 4.1
7. Some higher power--Evolution probably true 3.7
8. Believes but doubts--Evolution definitely true 2.9
9. Some higher power--Evolution definitely true 2.5
10. No way to know--Evolution definitely true 2.0
10. Doesn't believe in God--Evolution definitely true 2.0


Any American who likes to push atheism or likes to criticize believers must enjoy having no political voice whatsoever.

People are divided, on the other hand, when it comes to evolution. It's not popular with most people--my students think the whole thing stinks, as much as I push it--and it's especially unpopular among folks on the Right. On the other hand, it's intellectually satisfying to smart people.

So what's the solution? It looks to me like the only realistic way to go is for conservative elites to inform their worldview by sneaking peaks at HBD stuff when no one is looking, but they will have to fashion their ideas in a way that appeals to the common man. Does that sound like lying? Of course it does because that's what politics is, or haven't you noticed?

As a follow-up to my post about NAMs not attending tea party rallies, reader Robert Hume suggested I look at GSS data to see if politically active people in general are mostly white. The above graph shows that whites have disproportionately attended political meetings or rallies sometime in the past. At the same time, the differences are not huge: more than 20% of NAMs have participated at some time. (I looked at the variable HISPANIC and found that their numbers are the same as "other" shown above).

Garafalo claims that whites go to rallies because they're racists, but the racist protests are NAM rallies. The Million Man March was a manifestation of black solidarity. The illegal immigration protests were Latino solidarity. NAMs don't bother to show up unless the event is racist.

Do decisions like Iowa's State Supreme Court to allow same-sex marriages provide the Republican Party with an issue that will appeal to moderates in future elections? According to the 2008 General Social Survey, the answer is yes. The top graphs shows attitudes on the issue by political orientation for white Americans; the bottom one is for Hispanics--folks who are supposedly swing voters (I'm holding back the laughter).

First, look how strong the relationship is for whites. Close to 70 percent of those who are extremely conservative strongly disagree that gay people should be able to marry, compared to only 14 percent of extremely liberal Americans.

But the issue is moderates. They are 37% of whites in this sample--a very big group. Only 29% of them agree or strongly agree with granting the right. When economic concerns die down, and that's a big when, judicial assertiveness might help Republicans.

But look at Hispanics. You know, the rock solid social conservative group that they are. The moderates among them are pretty much split on the marriage issue. Friggin' waste of time.

Present and future Democrat strategy: In spite of a black man in the White House, it looks like Democrat strategists will continue to use claims of widespread racism among whites to demonize Republicans and their policies. And they will probably do it forever.

In the Political Brain, Drew Westin argues that Democrats must reveal the Right's very effective metanarrative for the racist ideology it is. While Republicans talk about limited government, low taxes, controlled immigration, states rights, etc., it is actually code for, "Join us and stick it to the Black Man."

Westin uses neuroscience research to show that people have conscious and unconscious motivational networks, and then links what Republicans say about race, and what they really feel about it deep down. In order to win elections, Democrats have to always bring this hatred to light. When Trent Lott praised Strom Thurmond, for example, he revealed his true feelings for blacks.

Westin says that this sort of revelation must be exploited mercilessly. According to the author, Republican strategists are such geniuses, they have been decades ahead of the science, and have been activating racist unconscious networks since Nixon. He uses the 2006 Harold Ford race to claim that Republican mad scientists knew exactly what they were doing when they ran an ad with the words, "He's just not right." The strategists knew that the phrase would activate neural networks, causing whites to interpret the phrase as "He's just not white."

With all the recent science showing that that racial bias is hardwired, we can expect Democrats to find hatred in every meaningless thing Republicans do or say. Their message will be that all conservatives are haters--fallen men, in fact--and the only way to redemption is to, say, support universal health care.

Guys like Westin want his party to use this strategy much more, not less in the future. I think they will--we saw plenty of it in 2008--and all I can hope is that it backfires in the long run. If many whites are like me, being browbeaten long enough will turn a person of good will into a rebel.

Pakistan 82.4

Parker's brilliant strategy for the GOP: Kathleen Parker actually gets paid for this stuff? In her piece today, she claims the Republicans are such losers now because born-agains make up the base. In other words, we lost the election, not because her elite Republican friends combined liberal ideas about minority home ownership with Wall Street greed, but because of those damn Jesus freaks.

Do all country club Republicans think like tards? Her argument reminds me of the reaction after 9/11: "Al-Qaeda has attacked us. Let's get Saddam!"

Here are quotes from her column and my responses:

"In the process, the party has alienated its non-base constituents, including other people of faith (those who prefer a more private approach to worship), as well as secularists and conservative-leaning Democrats who otherwise might be tempted to cross the aisle."

Yes, surveys clearly show that moderates went for Obama because the GOP panders to born-agains. The prospect of The Great Depression 2.0 had nothing to do with it. And don't give me the "Palin Screwed It Up For Us" argument. If there are people who decided against the Republican ticket because of Palin, it was because they perceived her as being stupid. They never got past that. The lesson there is to pick candidates who instill confidence, not that evangelical candidates are losers.

"Anyone watching the two conventions last summer can't have missed the stark differences: One party was brimming with energy, youth and diversity; the other felt like an annual Depends sales meeting."

Right, nursing home residents speak in tongues, but young people have nothing to do with all that stuff. All those born-again clubs I see on campus are just anomalies. Here are the percentage of people who say they are born again by age group (GSS):


Percent who are born again
18-29 33.9
30-44 37.2
45-59 36.2
60 plus 35.9

That's 18 million born-again young adults. The only young people Kathleen is aware of are the ones she reads about in the New York Times.

"The young will get older, of course. Most eventually will marry, and some will become their parents. But nonwhites won't get whiter."

Exactly, all those black and Hispanics reject the GOP because it's too religious and anti-science. And evangelism is a wacky, white thing:

Percent who are born again

Blacks 60.1

Hispanics 31.8

Parker calls for a new Republican base. Perhaps secularists? A whole 20.6% of those who never attend church voted for that famous holy roller Bob Dole. All we have to do is kick out the oogedy-boogedy Christians, and the secularists will come running.

New York City Republicans should become the center of the party. That there are six of them and 100 million born-agains isn't the point; the NYC-ers are way cooler.

(By the way, I'm not an evangelical. Not even close.)

Should Republicans give priority to born-agains or moderates? The short answer is the former. Here are the reasons.

Reason number one: Looking at NYT exit polls, we see that 57% of them voted for McCain, and the share voting for the Republican has ranged from 56 to 74 since 1980. A majority of them reliably support our side and thus should be rewarded with the party's loyalty. Democrats reliably get moderate majorities (with the exception of 1984) so we owe the middle nothing.

Reason number two: You might counter that since BAs are the base, they can therefore be taken for granted. The fact is that this group swings about as much as moderates. The range of the swing for born-agains since 1980 is 18 points; it's 22 points for moderates (and the low end of the swing for the latter was caused by the anomaly of Perot). Not only do BAs swing alot, they are notorious for staying home if they are unenthusiastic, and they can decide elections if they get fired up (as in 2004).

Reason number three: Once again, you might respond that, unlike moderates, they are a small group. In 2008, they are 38% of the electorate versus 44% for moderates. Yes, I know that some of the BAs are blacks, but so are some of the moderates. Add to this that BAs are growing. In 2004, white BAs were 23% of the electorate; now they are 26%.

Reason number four: The Republican track record is better when we put up non-moderates. Reagan garnered 59% of the vote in 1984. A weak candidate, Bush II was elected two times. Moderates are losers: Ford, Dole, McCain. Bush I was a one-termer who owes his victory to the non-moderate Reagan.

2008 and 2004 exit polls: I'm probably wasting my time comparing 2008 and 2004 exit polls because, as Karl Rove says, they're trash. But I cannot resist:


Republican 2004-2008 losses--percentage points

Men -7
Women -5

Dick Morris claims that these number show that Palin helped rather than hurt McCain by losing fewer women.

White -3
Black -7
Hispanic -13
Asian -9

Asians and especially Hispanics turned away from McCain more than whites. Is this evidence that angry immigration restrictionists like me turned of non-white voters? Maybe.

18-29 -13
30-44 -7
45-59 -2
60 plus -3

Obama pulled away more young people and not many older voters.

Northeast -3
Midwest -7
South -4
West -9

Midwesterner Obama gained more from the West Coast--whiterpeople effect? More Hispanic voters?

Less than high school -14
High school -6
Some college -7
College graduates -4
Postgraduates -14

Obama attracted the bottom and the top more than the middle.

White Protestants -2
White Catholics -4
Jews -4
Evangelicals -8
Attends church at least weekly -5

More evangelicals and frequent churchgoers abandoned the Republicans. Religious blacks? Idealist whites? No evidence here that evangelical whites are racists. By the way they are a HUGE share of the electorate (38%). We need them like oxygen.

Less than 15k -11
15-29k -5
30-49k -6
50-74k -7
75-100k -7
200+ -17
100+ -9

Once again, the bottom and the top liked Obama. Maybe many of the poor are blacks. Whiterpeople disease is prevalent among rich people, and perhaps some were turned off by Palin? It's a big loss.

Over 500,000 population -11
50-500,000 -10
Suburbs -4
10-50,000 +3
Rural -6

People in towns of populations between 10,000 and 50,000 were one of the few groups to increase their numbers voting for the Republican.

First time voters -15

A large turn toward the Democrat this time around.

Whites, 18-29 -11
Whites, 30-44 -5
Whites, 45-59 -1
Whites, 60 plus -1

Same age trend for whites only.

White men -5
White women -2
Black men -8
Black women -7

Once again, women were not drawn away from McCain as much as men. Palin effect? Security concerns?

Whites, Northeast -3
Whites, Midwest -5
Whites, South -2
Whites, West -6

Northeasterners liked Kerry. Southerners liked Obama least.

Now let's look at changes in the distribution of the electorate. Let's do it in this form: subtract the 2004 share from the 2008 share:

Men 47-46=1
Women 53-54=-1

Not much change here. The conservative instinct is to be manly, but women seem to like optimism and positive messages. To become popular, hard conservative truths have to be packaged very carefully. Republicans should always be looking for a Reagan--conservatism with a smile. Women like security, both the tough type and the helping type.

White 74-77=-3
Black 13-11=2
Hispanic 9-8=1
Asian 2-2=0

Whites are still the prize that nobody ever talks about. As Sailer tells us, the Hispanic numbers are inflated, but it's probably constant over the two elections, so we can conclude that the Latino share has grown a bit and will continue to grow a bit every four years. To save their long-term prospects, Republicans need to keep fighting illegal immigration in the name of security and law and order, as well as an emphasis on more quality immigrants and less family reunification. White and/or Christian immigrants are most likely to vote Republican.

The message should reassure Hispanic and other non-white citizens that immigration concerns are not about them. I publish a lot of hard facts on this blog, and interested people need to know about them, but the race-hysterical general public must be met where they are at.

18-29 18-17=1
30-44 29-29=0
45-59 30-30=0
60 plus 23-24=-1

Obama IS the new Messiah. He managed to increase the youth share by... ONE WHOLE PERCENT!! I AM impressed.

Less than high school 4-4=0
High school 20-22=-2
Some college 31-32=-1
College grad or more 45-42=3

The American public is gradually getting more educated. Republicans cannot afford to look like the anti-science party.

Pop. over 500k 11-13=2
50-500k 19-19=0
Suburbs 49-45=4
10-50k 7-8=-1
Rural 14-16=-2

The suburbs are huge and grew in the past 4 years. Once again, conservatism needs to be principled, but it has got to pick Reaganesque people, not old grumps like Dole or McCain. Myself, I love a real ass-kicker like Buchanan, but the squishy burbs can't handle it.

First time voters 11-11=0

Little things like facts won't get in the way of the inspiring story of Barack Obama, America's greatest president (who is going to get his own holiday before he's even inaugurated) who, like a modern-day Moses, led tens of millions of citizens out of the bondage of indifference and cynicism to the freedom of hope and change.

Elite ethno-religious group: I run across bloggers all the time who are extremely interested in a small but very elite ethno-religious group. Even though they are a tiny sliver of the total American population, they are found in disproportionate numbers in the highest echelons of society.

Always interested in precision, I wanted to see what the General Social Survey (GSS) had to say about this group. Compared to all whites, they are three times as likely to be in the highest income bracket. They are four times as likely to hold the single-most prestigious job (according to the GSS) in America--an MD. Their rate of earning graduate degrees is 3 times that of the average.

More than 80% believe that America should take an active role in world affairs. Almost 90% believe we should stay in the UN. More than 80% believe that immigration improves American society, and almost 60% feel that we should either increase or maintain current levels of immigration.

For decades, this group has worked relentlessly to undermine traditional America with its liberal agenda: immigration rights, human rights, anti-racism and anti-Semitism, homosexual rights, affirmative action, economic justice, and feminism.

Oh, by the way, the group is the Episcopal Church of America. (Okay, maybe I cheated a bit on the "ethno" part, but it is true that the ancestors of half of the current members were from Great Britain (GSS)).

Senior seminar class: For a number of years now, I have taught a senior seminar class where students summarize research articles of their choice. They are assigned a specific area of research, but within that topic they can bring in what they like. As an undergraduate and graduate student, I was bombarded by instructors with equal doses of race, class, and gender, but the discipline has reached a point where my students overwhelmingly bring in articles on race. Part of the reason for this is that most of my students are racially conscious blacks and Hispanics, and race is one of their favorites topics. They feel like they are "keepin' it real" by lecturing the teacher and the handful of white students in the class. But the students are not the main reason why my class is dominated by discussions of race. Many students are lazy and just grab the first interesting study they find, and there are SO many articles on race now, this is what they often find.

I'm sure that some of my drive-through readers think that something is wrong with this Ron Guhname guy because he analyzes so much data on race. If I there is anything to this charge, I respond in the same way the monster would: if you don't like me, blame Dr. Frankenstein. I simply think a lot about what my experience at the university has taught me to be interested in. My professors and now my students are obsessed with race, so what do you expect from me?

Ordinary white society has been trying really hard for decades to forget about racial distinctions, but elites and their only-too-willing minority constituencies won't let them forget. Well, even squishy whites can only take so much "you're the problem" before fighting back. Race hustlers have overplayed their hand, and I suspect that the recent furor over amnesty for illegals is a sign of things to come.

We need the right kind of SOB: According to Derbyshire, Guiliani is just the kind of SOB we need. I'm all for electing an SOB, but the real issue is where one points his SOB-ness. I can see Rudy being a real a-hole (AH) with terrorists, but he is going to turn warm-and-fuzzy on many issues conservatives care about. Guiliani in a sentimental voice: "Undocumented workers make this country better...This is a great nation of immigrants." Said with the sweetness of a househusband: "We don't want to return to the days of back-alley abortions." Wearing a dress like when he was on SNL: "Guns are scary...Why would anyone want to carry one for protection? You'll hurt someone with that thing." And wearing chartreuse pants and a black polka-dot shirt: "Homosexuals have the right to love each other too."