Andrew Gelman on Steve Sailer’s Dirt-Gap
Red states, blue states, and affordable family formation is a commentary on new article by Steve about his Affordable Family Formation theory. I don’t have much to add, except a note on this:
To get back to the main point, Sailer is making a geographic argument, that Democrats do better in coastal states because families are less likely to live in coastal metropolitan areas, because housing there is so expensive, because of the geography: less nearby land for suburbs. This makes a lot of sense, although it doesn’t really explain why the people without kids want to vote for Democrats and people with kids want to vote for Republicans. I can see that more culturally conservative people are voting Republican, and these people are more likely to marry and have kids at younger ages–but in that sense the key driving variable is the conservatism, not the marriage or the kids.
I think that Steve’s response would be that a family and kids tend to make you more inclined toward social conservatism. Specifically, full-throated principled defenses of lifestyle libertarianism are less attractive to people who aren’t going to be indulging in that in any case because of the constraints of family life.
Labels: Sociology
Low level W&A nationalism (which is fitfully captured by Republicans) might be the default intellectual-emotional position, and average W&A Democrats or libertines or whatever may simply be status striving in a manner that becomes superfluous once you’ve created a family. They become Republicans for the same reason they get fatter: because what others think of them matters less.
Women get less interested in abortion rights and other feminist issues as they settle into stable marriages, too, I think.
An unexpected pregnancy is decidedly less of a catastrophe for a married 26 year old than it is for a single college-age girl… I would never have voted for an anti-abortion candidate at age 18, but it’s just not a big litmus-test issue for me anymore.
And I think part of it is identity politics, at least for white people. Don’t know how the voting patterns change or not for other groups, but I know that affirmative action looked less like a beneficient redress for generations of white male privilege, and more like a threat to my innocent offspring, once my son was born.
I guess the bottom line is that you quit looking at what is good for you, and more at what is apt to be good for your kids. The selfish political gene. :p
Though, to be clear, the Republicans aren’t looking good for my kids this year. eek!
Razib,
IÂ’d like to quibble a bit with your statement:
> Specifically, full-throated principled defenses of lifestyle libertarianism are less attractive to people who aren’t going to be indulging in that in any case because of the constraints of family life.
I’m a rather fervent advocate of a “full-throated principled defenses of lifestyle libertarianism.” I think it is silly to have laws against public nudity. I advocate legalization of drugs, prostitution, pornography, etc.
It is also true of course that I donÂ’t want my own kids to use drugs, become prostitutes, read pornography, etc.
However, the canonical definition of “libertarianism” (and, indeed, the traditional American meaning of freedom of association, free speech, etc.) has been that part of “liberty” includes my right to exclude these things from my property, to only patronize businesses which exclude these things from their property, to publicly express my disapproval of such activities, etc.
I.e., legal – yes. On my property or approved by me – no.
Indeed, while my political views are fairly radical on these issues, my personal views would now count as rather conservative – I don’t think it is wise for high-school kids to be sexually active, for example.
Perhaps, you are using “lifestyle libertarianism” in a different sense – i.e., not merely that such matters should be legally tolerated but also that they should not be subject to social sanctions or disapproval?
Incidentally, one of the reasons I raise this point is not to argue with you over matters of definition but rather to point out that this distinction has actually caused a huge split in the “libertarian” movement, a very healthy split in my judgment. One group, which dubs itself “cosmopolitan,” “progressive,” etc. wishes to exclude the other group, often called “paleos,” who tend towards moral traditionalism. For example, the “cosmopolitan libertarians” have denounced Presidential candidate Ron Paul because he is clearly not with them on cultural lifestyle issues (although he does favor drug legalization, etc.).
The “cosmopolitans” also tend to get very, very upset if someone starts talking about cultural and behavioral differences among different ethnic groups, much less suggests the possibility of any genetic basis for such differences. So, you will not see many of those people here on gnxp.
If we draw a distinction between legal vs. socio-cultural norms, I think Steve’s and your points are obviously correct. Obviously, parents will tend to be more concerned about “negative influences” on teen-agers than non-parents are. Specifically, think in terms of obvious ev-psych issues (e.g., ensuring male investment of resources in a child), and it’s pretty clear why the “sexual revolution” is not altogether palatable to most parents (even if they participated in it themselves when they were younger).
Clearly, a lot of people fail to draw the distinction I’ve just drawn between legal norms and socio-cultural norms and just assume that legal norms must enforce the appropriate socio-cultural norms. That seems to me an unwise stance for the “cultural progressives” to take: parents are likely to always be a significant bloc in society, and the progressives are then encouraging parents to hew to a legally repressive position.
All the best,
Dave
dave, i am aware of the distinction between libertarianism and libertism. but that’s a subtle point for most humans. ergo, paleos are a minority among self-identified libertarians.
The “cosmopolitans” also tend to get very, very upset if someone starts talking about cultural and behavioral differences among different ethnic groups, much less suggests the possibility of any genetic basis for such differences. So, you will not see many of those people here on gnxp.
the likes of meagan mccardle has defended this weblog back in the day (as well as the ‘the bell curve’). also, i am on friendly terms with will wilkinson. so be careful about assuming that. a fair number of the GMU folk are aware of or read the gnxps as well. this doesn’t mean they assent to some of the “heresies” mooted on gnxps (neither will nor meagan do from what i know), but it does suggest their moral certainty isn’t rooted in the axiom of equality.
will and megan hav not really wrestled with the concepts here in a deep way.
Also the distinction between legal and moral is real but the concepts are correlated. If moral, generally not illegal. Hence the two by two table of legal/illegal vs moral/immoral has one mostly empty cell. Chi square will be significant.
I doubt many will understand that ramble but it was substantive
Of course, one simpler hypothesis is that higher education correlates both with later marriages (obviously) and with voting for Kerry (ignore the rhetoric, just look at the data). Notice that the outlier is the same: DC.
Note that the particular election being discussed (Bush vs Kerry) is very particular, and it might not be useful to reduce it to a traditional Left/Right divide. You don’t need to be a Berkeley student rep to prefer John Kerry to George W.(M.D.) Bush.
In addition to the social conservative thing, keeping more of your own money becomes more urgent when you are supporting kids.
keeping more of your own money becomes more urgent when you are supporting kids.
the flip side is the appeal of government programs.
I’d be most inclined to think of these as effects that are not really linked. My own observations are that people in major cities with families are no more conservative than otherwise similar people. Mothers in particular tend to liberalism, at least in CA.
I would guess that it’s more along the lines that (a) cities require more governance than rural areas, and so are more attractive to people who like (or at least can stand) more government, while those that chafe under that will stay in (or move to) less populated areas; and (b) cities are also more expensive to live in and raise kids in, and so people in them have fewer of them.
I recognize this is speculation. But I’d be inclined to think that conservatism doesn’t cause families, nor do familes cause conservatism, but rather that the geography affects both.
=====
?If you’re not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you’re not a conservative at forty you have no brain.? — Winston Churchill
Possibly another effect is that people do tend a bit more conservative as they age, and that this shift more or less coincides with family-making age, and that family making coincides with moving out of the city and into a suburb or other place where space is more affordable.
PhilB
phil, ceteris paribus.
PhilB,
hurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=112 or http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/2005/06/21/did-churchill-coin-that-over-30-maxim/ ).
I can?t resist pointing out that the quote you attribute to Churchill is one of the stupidest things the man ever, supposedly, said. Twenty year olds are excused for being brainless? Forty year olds are excused for being heartless? And that?s the essence of political disagreements?
C?mon!
Incidentally, while I?m no admirer of Churchill (see http://www.lewrockwell.com/raico/churchill-full.html ), the truth is that Churchill evidently was not dumb enough to have uttered this quote (see, e.g., http://www.winstonc
Dave
Razib,
I?m glad to hear that you get along with Will personally. However, I can?t find, via Google, anywhere that he has said anything nice about you or gnxp publicly (perhaps I?ve missed something?).
And Will has said, for example:
>I knew Rockwell?s reputation as a racist and homophobe. And the syndrome of positions Paul has staked on immigration, sovereignty, and constitution idolatry is in my experience often correlated with racist sentiments?
I?m very familiar with Rockwell?s writings and fairly familiar with Paul?s ? if Will is willing to smear those guys in such terms, well, I can?t imagine that he really admires you own ?political incorrectness? which leaves Rockwell?s and Paul?s in the dust!
Perhaps, Will simply does not think you are politically important enough to be worth smearing (no insult intended ? he has not smeared me yet, no doubt for the same reason). Or maybe your well-known congeniality has charmed even Will.
As to Megan, I can?t find her defense of gnxp that you allude to. She does certainly seem to me to be PC, and I can?t find her opposing the PC line that one should not consider the possibility that the obvious cultural, behavioral, and IQ differences among different ethnic groups might possibly have a genetic component, but I may have missed something. If she defended gnxp, perhaps she was just being inconsistent or is not well acquainted with gnxp (or has since changed her tune since she came out of the closet at ?The Atlantic?)?
Anyway, you?ll notice that I hedged my bets in my earlier post: I said the cosmo-libs ?tend? to behave that way and that you won?t find ?many? of them at gnxp. Thankfully, humans are diverse and perverse enough that you can usually find one or two to buck some policy of groupthink. And your statement that ?a fair number of the GMU folk are aware of or read the gnxps as well? actually fits my point (although I was thinking more of Cato/Reason than GMU): ?aware of or read? is a lot different from ?would be caught dead being publicly associated with?!
Anyway, the whole point about cosmo-libs and gnxp was just an aside.
My main point is that I think Steve Sailer?s general point does a fine job of explaining the difference between the cosmo-libs and the paleo-libs. It?s not surprising that I have seen more than one cosmo-lib who seems to have a deep and abiding hatred for Steve! (I, on the other hand, find Steve to be a charming fellow, even when I disagree with him.)
All the best,
Dave
alpha,
Your post is clear enough, but I suspect it may be mistaken.
You wrote:
> If moral, generally not illegal.
You know the distinction between ?malum in se? and ?malum prohibitum??
It seems to be a long-established principle of law that many actions which are not immoral as such nonetheless are and should be illegal.
I myself do tend to disagree with that principle ? if something is not wrong per se, I can?t see outlawing it. And, of course, I think that many things that are morally wrong should nonetheless be legal, for both pragmatic and ethical reasons.
I do think the cosmo-libertarians are making a huge strategic mistake, in terms of their own goals, in failing to make this moral vs. legal distinction. If the only people who should favor legalization of homosexual behavior are people who are not bothered at all by homosexuality, then I fear we will rapidly return to the bad old days of outlawing homosexuality. For obvious biological reasons, most people are likely to continue to find homosexuality a bit distasteful. If that makes all of us ?homophobes,? then ?homophobes? are simply destined to rule.
Or, contrary to the cosmo-libs, we could accept a more nuanced approach so that even though of us who find homosexuality distasteful recognize that this is not a matter in which the law should have any say. Laissez nous faire.
Dave
?If you’re not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you’re not a conservative at forty you have no brain.? — Winston ChurchillI wasn’t a ‘liberal’ at twenty, I never much doubt I shall be a ‘conservative’ at forty, and Churchill was a silly, if eloquent, lush.
It is possible to recognize both that attempts of society to impose various behavioral norms is a bad idea, and that many of the behaviors related to those norms are a good idea. I strongly support the right of people to make their own mistakes and do truly foolish things, because I think that is the best way to get the most people looking carefully at their options and choosing wisely.
“I said the cosmo-libs ?tend? to behave that way and that you won?t find ?many? of them at gnxp.”
dave, gnxp was founded by cosmo-libs! ;-) it is run by cosmo-libs. trust me. as for will & meagan, will & i correspond and have IMed. he sends me links to CATO unbound when appropriate (e.g., the flynn vs. gottfredson debate). as for meagan, she defended the bell curve and gnxp from charges of racism back in the day (her reading of the blog was casual at best from what i gather, and i doubt she reads the blog now, but it is a lot more toned down than it used to be in any case). neither will nor meagen agree that human biodiversity is valid from what i can tell; but neither are they knee-jerk about rejecting the idea as morally repugnant. i would offer that the extracts of the ron paul newsletters are a bit more than what you would find at gnxp, no?
as for cosmo vs. paleo libs, the ratio at gnxp is more balanced than elsewhere. but as i said, running the weblog for 5 years i can tell you that cosmo-libertarianism is well represented here.
p.s. as for th GMU guys, they read us, they link us, and i’ve had lunch with them in DC and they knew i represented GNXP.
physicist dave, if you sanction/subsidize something you will get more of it.
True in the abstract but let’s try the concrete
what happens when something illegal becomes legal or immoral becomes permissible, and then even moral?
you will get more of it. Those who disfavor X would be foolish to lobby strongly for its legalization unless they can convincingly point to indirect effects. And usually people are not consistent enough to make those indirecteffects highly probable. In other words if you want Y do not lobby for X indirectly if youdisfavorX. Lobby for Y and make X a special case.
ue
note that Y could be say “freedom of association” and X could be “homosexual activity”
wrt to that specific issue one interesing jing is that the consequentialist secular case against homosexuality is not at all well represented. Yet there are obvious public health arguments like MRSA and public stability arguments (gay rights -> gay marriage -> polygamy -> middle eastern levels of mate competition in winner take all market).
also it should not escape our notice that we seek cures for scizophrenia and bipolar. Yet thDSM was lobbied to remove homosexuality as a mental disrder. No serious medical resources are being devoted to curing somthing which essentially ends a family line. Indeed until the serendipitous dicovery of
fruitless in drosophila many of the bien pendants maintained that a cure was impossible, pointing to the christians and laughing
in this as with other things only the stupidest right wing arguments get a public hearing…the huckabees, not the sailers. Leftists are copletely unequpped tod
ebate a secular rightist
what happens when something illegal becomes legal or immoral becomes permissible, and then even moral?
you will get more of it. Actually, I would expect you’d get less of it. Illegal things, especially already-desirable illegal things, are extremely alluring. When society pushes something, people push back.
let’s look at the data Caledonian. Get 10 examples in diff countries. You dispute that legalization generally increases frequency?
what you are omitting is the porno effect. The previous taboo becomes commonplace and we now need to push harder for stimulation
razib wrote to me:
>i would offer that the extracts of the ron paul newsletters are a bit more than what you would find at gnxp, no?
No, I really disagree. I think that gnxp is much more inflammatory than the newsletters ? have you read the newsletters for yourself? They were pretty milquetoast stuff, less inflammatory than a lot of Maureen Dowd columns, that some people latched on to for political reasons.
gnxp is a good deal more technical than the Ron Paul newsletters, and I actually suspect that most cosmo-libs are either not bright enough or not patient enough to follow most posts on gnxp; also, of course, gnxp makes no claim to be part of the ?libertarian movement? so it not on the radar for most cosmo-libs.
You also wrote:
>gnxp was founded by cosmo-libs! ;-) it is run by cosmo-libs.
Hmmm?. Tom Palmer? Ginny Postrel? Julian Sanchez?
razib, ?cosmo-libs? (short for ?cosmopolitan libertarians,? a description favored by some of the cosmo-libs themselves) does not mean someone who happens to be both cosmopolitan and libertarian anymore than ?neo-conservative? mean someone who is new to conservatism. Both ?neo-con? and ?cosmo-lib? refer to very specific political groupings.
I am much more cosmopolitan than most cosmo-libs, and I?m a libertarian: that does not make me a cosmo-lib.
If you mean simply that gnxp was founded by people who were both cosmopolitan and libertarian, sure, and Ron Paul is supported by a very large number of people who are both cosmopolitan and libertarian. He?s not supported by the cosmo-libs.
If you mean that most of the people I have dubbed cosmo-libs (Palmer, Postrel, Sanchez et al.) would not be appalled by many gnxp postings on ?human biodiversity,? well, I do not think you have much acquaintance with their views on such matters.
I will say that I have seen more than one cosmo-lib express rather intense hatred for Steve Sailer, who is, of course, better known on the Web than you (or me), because of Steve?s views on ?human biodiversity.?
I am, I must confess, tempted to try an experiment of seeing if I can gin up some interest in gnxp among the real cosmo-libs to see exactly how they react. However, I?m doubtful that many of them have the IQ to actually follow gnxp, and, if I did manage to get them to wander over here, I don?t think you would appreciate the visitors: I?ve been interacting with them, off and on, for three and a half decades, and they are not very nice people.
All the best,
Dave
If you mean that most of the people I have dubbed cosmo-libs (Palmer, Postrel, Sanchez et al.) would not be appalled by many gnxp postings on ?human biodiversity,? well, I do not think you have much acquaintance with their views on such matters.
postrel’s husband used to read gnxp in 2002. he sent an email correcting a contributor on an economics point. i don’t know about palmer, but i have been to a CATO event and am known to david boaz ; i sat at his table, we talked a fair amount, and he introduced me to cathy young.
alpha wrote to me:
>what happens when something illegal becomes legal or immoral becomes permissible, and then even moral?
>you will get more of it. Those who disfavor X would be foolish to lobby strongly for its legalization unless they can convincingly point to indirect effects.
Well, alpha, they might think it morally wrong but also think that outlawing it is an over-reaction, indeed that outlawing it shifts the onus from individual responsibility to (usually ineffectual) law enforcement. To take one example, an awful lot of drinking went on during Prohibition!
I?m morally opposed to prostitution, pornography, recreational drug use, adultery, gambling and a lot of other things, but I think it is morally wrong (and silly) to outlaw those things. It?s using a sledgehammer to kill a fly.
Or, if you want a more philosophical description, outlawing such activities is a violation of other people?s natural and inalienable rights: I?m rather fond of natural rights, as the Founders of the Republic were. (I?m a rather fervent anarchist, but I?ll take the Founders? Republic over the current system.)
I take it that by ?indirect effects? you mean things such as the gang warfare that resulted from Prohibition?
There are also broader ?indirect effects,? you know. ?Morals? legislation tends to make people more accepting of all sorts of silly controls and regulations from the nanny state (e.g., seatbelt laws) and not-so-silly regulations (e.g., the PATRIOT Act, no-knock laws, etc.), that have a significant effect in diminishing our civil liberties.
I?m actually much more morally ?puritanical? than the overwhelming majority of Americans, but I nonetheless oppose ?legislating morality.? Either I am seriously nuts to hold that view, or there is something amiss in you analysis.
Dave
I?m actually much more morally ?puritanical? than the overwhelming majority of Americans, but I nonetheless oppose ?legislating morality.? Either I am seriously nuts to hold that view, or there is something amiss in you analysis.
h. l. mencken was the same. no ordinary american, he. i would be willing to bet that being less moral than what you would want to have legislated is much more common than being more moral than what you would want to have legislated (however you define moral). i’m in the same boat as you dave, i just don’t think that it’s very normal.
razib,
Your making my case for me. You?ve had some limited contact with people who have had some contact with the core cosmo-libs (e.g., not Ginny Postrel, but her husband). The cosmo-libs have not launched a public attack on gnxp (which makes sense, since gnxp does not matter in the circles they move in ? why give you the free publicity?), but you can?t point to any core cosmo-libs who?ve actually agreed with you publicly about ?human biodiversity.? They?d better not ? they?d be in more trouble with their peers than the Ron Paul newsletters caused!
Of course, some cosmo-libs are quietly curious about issues of human biodiversity: at some level, everyone is! Normal people talk a fair amount about differences between men and women, differences among various ethnic groups, etc. and for millennia this has been a staple of humor.
But I think you are going to look very hard before you find a prominent cosmo-lib who will publicly praise your interest in ?human biodiversity.?
I hope it is clear that I am not criticizing you at all on this. I think it is swell to be curious about human biodiversity, although I am not as interested in the subject as you or Steve Sailer (I of course know much less than you and Steve on the subject).
Again, my only real point in this discussion is that Steve?s analysis of the family connection as explaining Red-state/Blue-state differences would seem also to explain a lot of the cosmo-lib/paleo-lib differences. The cosmo-libs positively exalt attitudes and behavior that very few parents would like to see exhibited in their own children. I?m really just trying to make this very narrow point as a means of suggesting that Steve?s analysis explains a great deal of the chasm we all see in the ?Culture Wars.?
Even those of us who have no reason to sympathize with Pat Robertson et al. in terms of religion, etc. and who actually favor a complete end to ?morals legislation? nonetheless, if we are parents, tend to disapprove of the extreme ?libertine? approach to social/cultural life. Steve makes a very important point.
That?s really my only point.
All the best,
Dave
Razib wrote to me:
>i would be willing to bet that being less moral than what you would want to have legislated is much more common than being more moral than what you would want to have legislated (however you define moral). i’m in the same boat as you dave, i just don’t think that it’s very normal.
I don?t know. In some ways, the US in the nineteenth century seems to have had less ?morals legislation? than today. As far as I have been able to tell, ?drug laws? (not counting alcohol) started in the late-nineteenth century to deal with those ?filthy opium dens? of Asian immigrants. And marijuana laws seem to have been largely a twentieth-century invention.
And, I?m often surprised to find how open ordinary people are to ending such silliness. Back in the early ?80s, for example, my step-grandmothers, a conservative, church-going, Southern lady, brought up the subject to me and told me that she thought the drug laws should be ended. She wasn?t pro-drugs, of course, but it just did not make sense to her to jail kids for experimenting with drugs (and obviously the laws were not keeping kids from getting drugs). Perhaps I tend to associate with enlightened people (although you can?t choose your grandmother!), but I?ve had this sort of experience many times.
Politics tends to focus on very simplistic symbols, and I suspect that the public opposition to drug legalization may be due to the fact that a politician?s supporting drug legalization would serve as a symbol that he was a ?cultural liberal,? which most people dislike. Ron Paul has opposed the War on Drugs for many years, and been re-elected to Congress repeatedly in a conservative, Southern state. But of course, since his personal behavior is almost as conservative as mine, his constituents may be reassured that he is not a ?cultural liberal? and therefore not hold his opposition to the Drug War against him.
Is there any way to separate the ?symbolic? issue from what people really think about actually putting some kid in jail for possessing drugs? Sometimes I think that human lives are ruled by imaginary symbols and very little else.
All the best,
Dave
“One group, which dubs itself ?cosmopolitan,? ?progressive,? etc. wishes to exclude the other group, often called ?paleos,? who tend towards moral traditionalism. For example, the ?cosmopolitan libertarians? have denounced Presidential candidate Ron Paul because he is clearly not with them on cultural lifestyle issues (although he does favor drug legalization, etc.).”
No, they don’t like him because they think he is anti-semitic and closet racist who lets other folks speak for him. His arguments to the contrary were not really convincing. There is a reason certain groups support Paul (KKK, Skinheads, etc).
This issue is really very complicated.
In states like Ohio, and other swing states in the region, there is a strong historic labor union presence. Most of these people are white and culturally conservative, but they feel Republicans are pro-big business and hostile to unions. This is also true in a lot of New England.
Southern whites don’t have a strong union tradition (or none at all), one might argue that voting Republican is against their short term economic interests, but there is also the racial issue. In many Southern states blacks have a lot of power in the Democratic party and since Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” which was basically white identity politics that lured away angry white Dixicrats to the Republicans who were made at the Johnson Admin for signing the Civil Rights Act many whites in the South will never vote Democrat even if they are fairly liberal due to racial issues. That’s reality, even today.
you can see easily that Obama does bad among whites in Louisiana, South Carolina, etc. However states like VA (where the whites are urban, educated, and often migrants from the North) he did much better.
Didn’t some of the founders of GNXP support the Iraq war? That seems to be the bitterest issue between cosmos and paleos. I think some other members have been part of sites like Catallaxy & Conjectures and Refutations, which seem more on the cosmo side. Finally, they’re pretty much all irreligious and none of them southerners.
Longma wrote of Ron Paul:
>No, they don’t like him because they think he is anti-semitic and closet racist who lets other folks speak for him.
Well? you can say that if you wish, just as I can, if I wish, allege that you are a well-known serial murderer hiding from justice in Timbuktu!
But there happens not to be a shred of evidence for either allegation.
No one has pointed to any evidence at all that Paul is either anti-Semitic or a ?closet racist? (of course, if you are ?in the closet,? I guess evidence would be hard to come by, hmmm?). He has criticized the close US-Israeli alliance, and someone who worked for him criticized the rioters in the early ?90s in LA who looted, assaulted, and murdered, and who happened to be largely blacks.
If that makes one ?anti-Semitic? and a ?closet racist,? then almost everyone is one or the other or both, including a very large number of blacks and Jews.
On the other hand, a number of the self-proclaimed ?cosmopolitan libertarians? have also criticized Paul quite harshly for not sharing their own ?progressive,? ?cosmopolitan? cultural views. The evidence that he does not share those views is, in fact, absolutely, iron-clad certain. Furthermore, this criticism was made of Paul, and many cosmo-libs opposed Paul, before there was any allegation made about anti-Semitism or ?closet? racism.
So? we have here two possible hypotheses explaining their opposition to Paul. One hypothesis has zero evidence. The other has a huge amount of evidence.
As a scientist, I find the conclusion here rather easy to reach as to which hypothesis is more likely to be correct.
Perhaps you disapprove of induction?
Dave
TGGP,
I?m irreligious and I?m not a Southerner and I?m a ?paleo? in good standing. I?m not eccentric in those respects. Those are not the relevant distinctions. That would be like saying that someone?s not a ?neocon? because he?s not Jewish: many neocons are in fact Jewish, but it?s not a defining trait!
Part of the point I?m trying to make here (although it really was just an aside!), is that paleo-libs and cosmo-libs are two separate, fairly well-defined, and rather small (!), political groups. Most human beings, and certainly most people here at gnxp are members of neither group.
And, no, the war issue does not distinguish the groups either. Many cosmo-libs have opposed the war from the get-go.
I happen to have noticed that the one distinction that does tell you fairly easily which group someone fits in is the distinction Steve and Razib drew about attitudes to culture that might be held by a stereotypical parent. The paleo-libs tend to hold ?parental? cultural views; the cosmo-libs do not. It is similar to the Red-state/Blue-state distinction that Steve and Razib point to, but much more dramatic.
I seem somehow to have touched a raw nerve by making what I thought was an innocent observation! I did not think that even cosmo-libs would find this to be an invidious comparison ? they are generally quite proud of their not holding ?traditional? Red-state cultural views.
Dave
Dave:
If you are publishing a newsletter on a monthly basis and (more than once) it makes statements that are anti-semitic and racist would you as an educated man be obvious to that, especially when your name is signed on it digitally? If the person who wrote it was fired and you are running for president and the media confronts you with it. Would you say “I don’t know who wrote it”? Come now. I would hope Ron Paul is more intelligent than that, if he is not, he definitely has no business being in the Oval Office.
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca
You think this could innocently happen to George Bush, Bill Clinton, etc.? In any case, if he is a racist/anti-Semite or just an incompetent weirdo he will never make it through a general election, he won’t even make it to the Senate.
It is commonly thought (at least where I live in DC) that Ron Paul is somewhat “crazy”, eccentric at best.
Politics is about sharing power and it is obvious he is obviously someone so attached to ideology that if they did manage to get in the White House (obviously an impossibility as I said from the beginning despite his online cults blathering several months back) he would not get 90% of what he wants done. There would be government deadlock, and as typically happens in America, people would keep the Dems in power in the Senate and Congress, but with Paul a lot of Republicans would not back him and likely side with the Dems to undermine him, because he is not just going to go against party norms, but the entire Washington establishment in such a way that it will threaten and alienate everyone. Washington is a small town and people like him won’t “play well in the sandbox”.
So Ron Paul’s movement will never be more than a fringe movement supported by the Cato Institute, some dope smoking, anti-federal tax isolationists, rural militia types with 50 guns waiting for the ZOG conspiracy or Helter Skelter, Hate groups, and predominately white male on-line fan boy types. That is not a constituency that is going to carry much water into the future as it is shrinking daily.
Reality is, in number, I’m guessing these types are maybe 5-10% of white males, and less of white females. The number of minorities who hold these views might be less than 1%. Due to population growth dynamics, the current 66% of the population that is white, is shrinking, dramatically, in 50 years, current estimates, from what I read in BBC show that Hispanics will be 30% of the U.S. population and blacks about 16%. White males will be less than 25%.
If we keep a two party system, their won’t be a real libertarian or paleo that can get out of the primary system, and get anywhere in a state-wide election, but for maybe someplace like Alaska or Wyoming. Presidential election…forget it. There might be a handful of congressmen.
I just do not see how one can generate the critical mass to bring any significant change.
Hell due to demographics I would imagine if the Republican Party does not change, it will be unable to win a national election in 15-20 years. I thought they were getting intelligent about this until they went and alienated their fastest growing group (Hispanics) over illegal alien/immigration.
Longma,
I’m afraid we are talking past each other.
You ask me:
>If you are publishing a newsletter on a monthly basis and (more than once) it makes statements that are anti-semitic and racist would you as an educated man be obvious [sic] to that, especially when your name is signed on it digitally?
Your question presupposes that I agree that the newsletter has multiple ?anti-semitic? and ?racist? comments in it.
I do not in fact agree. In fact, I think the proposition that you assume is patently and certainly false.
I have read the newsletters, kindly posted by TNR, in their entirety, word for word: http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=74978161-f730-43a2-91c3-de262573a129 .
I do not see multiple racist or anti-Semitic remarks in them. I have repeatedly asked others to point out things in those newsletters that are racist or anti-Semitic. They have responded that it is ?obvious? but have declined to discuss details.
I find this unconvincing.
I know this is part of politics in America nowadays. Remember a few weeks ago when Hillary was denounced as racist for pointing out that MLK could not have gotten the ?64 Civil Rights Act through without support from LBJ?
What she said was factually true: I doubt that any poli sci prof would seriously deny it. But, still it was, you know, ?racist? for her to point out the obvious truth.
I favor Barack over Hillary, but, nonetheless, this sort of accusation of ?racism? against Hillary was simply a blatant and grotesque lie.
The same is true of the proposition that the Ron Paul newsletters were full of racism or anti-Semitism. This proposition is constantly asserted but never really defended. I urge anyone who doubts this to actually read through the posted newsletters in their entirety as I have done. You will find utter contempt exhibited towards people who engaged in looting, assault, and murder in LA in the ?90s during the Rodney King riots and no attempt to hide the fact that those who engaged in such behavior were largely black.
To call such recitation of facts ?racism? is simply to engage in gutter politics of the sort recently aimed at Hillary. There is some indication that Barack will soon be on the receiving end of this sort of nonsense: he has a friend who admired Farrakhan ? just watch what the smear artists do with that!
And, yes, I condemn that too ? as I said, I actually favor Barack over Hillary, personally.
Dave
Longma,
You also wrote:
>It is commonly thought (at least where I live in DC) that Ron Paul is somewhat “crazy”, eccentric at best.
Yes, and where I grew up, in a lily-white, conservative, evangelical-Christian, Midwestern suburb, I was considered more than a little ?crazy? and ?eccentric,? especially by my own family, for being an atheist, an evolutionist, an anti-racist, etc.
If Paul were not considered ?crazy? and ?eccentric? by you and your friends in DC, I would not have supported him.
You patiently explained to us all that Ron Paul cannot be elected President this year or in the next few years.
Do you think anyone here is unaware of that fact?
I am an anarchist. I recognize that ?government? is simply the name we give to a group of guys who are able to get away with actions in broad daylight that most criminals choose to carry out under cover of darkness.
I am aware that the gang called ?government? will not be defeated this year or next year. I am also aware that history often takes dramatic and unexpected turns ? the French Revolution, the collapse of the Soviet Union, etc.
No government lasts forever. I hope to live long enough to see the destruction of the criminal gang know as the ?government of the United States.?
I have no idea whether or not I will. But, eventually, it will indeed fall, as all governments eventually do.
In the interim, I do what I can, in my own little ways, to de-legitimize the government.
If I have the chance to discourage a young kid from signing up with the Army, I give it my best shot. If I can convince someone to let a kid off for drug charges by talking about ?jury nullification,? I do what I can. If I can get someone to laugh at the idea of a ?flag-burning? amendment or see the ?Pledge of Allegiance? as a bizarre form of idolatry, I feel I have struck a tiny blow for humanity.
I do not suffer from the delusion that I, or Ron Paul (or you or Hillary or Obama) can single-handedly change the direction of history. But I can do my own tiny little bit to refuse to stand up, click my heels, and salute the criminal gang who reside in the town you call home.
I know that makes me ?crazy? and ?eccentric? in your view. In the old Soviet Union, they put people like me in psych wards.
But, someday, the regime in DC will be as dead and forgotten as the USSR.
Do you see why I think you and I are talking past each other?
All the best,
Dave
For the record, a lot of those quotes lose what little offense they may seem to contain when taken in context.
There is a good summary of that here as well as a generall discussion of the smear tactics used against Paul (and shortly against Obama) here.
daveg,
Yeah, when you consider that most people do not care (or even know!) that the top member of the US Senate (President pro tem) was a member of the KKK (Kleagle and Exalted Cyclops!) in his youth, I think it is obvious that the Ron Paul newsletter flap had little influence on the vote: as LongMa so nicely pointed out, Paul was not going to win anyway. Of course, Ron did, actually, more than once beat the guy who was the early front-runner, Giuliani.
What interests me is not trying to defend Ron, who can certainly defend himself and whose Presidential campaign is now pretty much over anyway, but the larger phenomenon here ? the bizarre smearing of Hillary for the MLK/LBJ remark, the beginning signs of a smear campaign against Barack over the Rev. Wright/Farrakhan connection, etc.
Anarchist though I am, I am sufficiently fond of the Republic to think that perhaps all this lying is not a good thing ? although, maybe it will help in the end to discredit the political class altogether and help the populace to view ?government? as the criminal organization that it is.
Dave
As far as Hillary Clinton, I don’t think what she said was “racist”. What she said was factual. It was more how she phrased it, that some took as minimizing Dr. King’s role. This was done on purpose. I think she was race bating. Not making a racist statement. Big difference.
I believe she did that hoping that Obama would respond like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton so she could debase him as the “black man’s candidate” and turn off most whites. That may have worked in South Carolina…but I don’t think so. It definitely did not spread nation-wide. In a way this was her “neo-Southern strategy” as a last ditch attempt to kill Obama’s campaign. What she did was alienate the black support she had (which was sizable, in fact greater than black support for Obama and make over 70% of blacks vote for him). So Hill-billy’s plan backfired. She did not just annoy black people she annoyed Ted Kennedy (another big mistake and all Nanci Pelosi’s surrogates mobilized in Cali making the vote very close although she has never formally endorsed anyone). Hillary messed up. Reality is all of them were scared. Blacks are about 1/5 the democratic party and unlike Hispanics they are key in a lot of swing states that Democrats need to win in a polarized election (Missouri, Ohio, even Virginia). What Hillary did might make black folks stay home, Dems can’t win the election without black support.
“I am aware that the gang called ?government? will not be defeated this year or next year. I am also aware that history often takes dramatic and unexpected turns ? the French Revolution, the collapse of the Soviet Union, etc.
No government lasts forever. I hope to live long enough to see the destruction of the criminal gang know as the ?government of the United States.?
I have no idea whether or not I will. But, eventually, it will indeed fall, as all governments eventually do.”
Well that tells me all I need to know really. I’m a pragmatist, not really an ideologue. So that means I focus on working within the system and tweaking it because that is much more realistic than thinking you are going to radically change it or destroy it. You are correct that all systems/organizations die at some point due to their inability to adapt, but I do not think a collapses of the U.S. government is in anyone’s best interest and I do not see that as happening in the near future (my life time, which I’m guessing will be about 50 more years).
America is not like Europe, Japan, South Korea or any other developed area. There will always be Ron Paul style libertarians out there in remote places of the country, but I think in the end most American’s move to the center as they mature. How many Republicans have started off political life as radical leftists? Quite a few I suspect. How many kids who grew up as part of the religious right moved to the “big city” and moderated their stances due to social pressure? I would also think quite a few.
LongMa wrote:
> As far as Hillary Clinton, I don’t think what she said was “racist”. What she said was factual. [snip] I think she was race bating.
?Factual? but ?race baiting?? I think you have just made clear your own criteria of evaluation.
Hillary made very clear and explicit that she was contrasting a charismatic leader (MLK, Obama) with a hands-on effective politician (LBJ, herself). I happen to be old enough to remember LBJ, and I hated him — he was a vicious lying, thieving murderer
But LBJ was indeed a very skilled political insider.
If for Hillary to point this out constitutes ?race baiting,? well, I rest my case about the debasement of public language. Please remember: I favor Obama over Hillary. But I also dislike lying.
LongMa also wrote:
> So that means I focus on working within the system and tweaking it because that is much more realistic than thinking you are going to radically change it or destroy it.
As I said before, we are talking past each other. What you call ?the system? I call a massive organization engaged in *sytematic* theft and murder. In the course of its existence, the US government has chosen to participate in wars that killed well over a million Americans (not to mention several times that number of foreigners).
I am no more interested in ?tweaking? such an enterprise in order to help it serve its goals more effectively than I would be willing to serve as an efficiency consultant for the Mafia or for old Joe Stalin.
No, the US government has not killed as many people as Stalin, but it has killed many more people and stolen far more money than the Mafia even dreamed of. And, as so many people around the world today recognize, the US government is the primary threat to world peace today, the most dangerous ?rogue state? on the planet.
I certainly cannot single-handedly change or destroy the criminal enterprise known as the US government, any more than I can alter or destroy the Mafia or al Qaeda. But I can at least avoid helping any of those organizations, encourage other decent people to refrain from helping them, and, if the opportunity ever presents itself, I can try to throw a bit of sand in the gears and make it harder for such operations to function effectively.
LongMa also wrote:
> I think in the end most American’s move to the center as they mature.
That?s not my observation. I?m over a half century old, and with each passing year, as I come to better understand the evil that men are capable of, I become more intransigent in my opposition to evil organizations such as the US government. And I see the same happening with numerous acquaintances, family members, etc. LongMa, you need to get out of DC a bit more: something?s astir around the country.
Perhaps, LongMa, the lifespan of the US government will prove a bit shorter than you think ? two centuries is a rather long lifespan in historical terms for a government. At any rate, whether it lives another decade or another century, I will do what I can to encourage people of good will to see the US government for what it is ? a massive organization engaged in mass murder and large-scale theft, and the primary threat to peace on earth. I can?t change the world, but perhaps I can help a few people see past the lies.
If more people of good will do this, the ?unthinkable? can rapidly become thinkable: the government of the USA can disitnegrate just as fast as the government of the USSR died. If one Union can be eliminated, so also can the other Union.
All the best,
Dave
In case I misled, I am an irreligious northerner but also consider myself a paleo. I think Chris Roach supported the Iraq War even though he is a paleo, but tendencies are tendencies.