Wednesday, July 02, 2014

Muddy snowflakes

In response to a study showing that phrases like "hive mind" quite aptly describe the political left generally and SWPLs in particular, Jokah commented:
The only problem is that "liberals" does not just refer to white liberals, right? Does this then undercut the hypothesis that the coalition of the diverse will eventually fracture due to, er, divergent interests?
First, the percentage breakdowns of self-described political orientation by race in the US. For contemporary relevance, all responses are from 2000 onward:

RaceLibModCon
White24.837.637.6
All non-White31.941.626.5
Black31.443.724.9
Hispanic32.037.930.0
Asian32.341.925.7

Even though among Democrats non-whites tend to be less liberal than whites, on net non-whites are more likely to describe themselves as liberal than whites are. When I last watched tv news a decade or so ago, I recall that it was common among mainstream right pundits (Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly) to describe the US as a "center-right" country. More accurately, white America is a center-right country. Non-white America, not so much.

Unlike the racial and ethnic confounds that render useless a Swedish study on the connection between fertility and incarceration, the opposite is the case here. The racial angle accentuates the broader pattern. For all the racial, ethnic, and sexual diversity the Left boasts, its members quite reliably tow the ideological line.

Those on the alternative right often point to the potential fissures in the leftist coalition that seem likely to occur along those same aforementioned racial, ethnic, and sexual fault lines, yet there is broad overall agreement on major political, cultural, and economic issues among the demographically diverse Left. That suggests that ideological conformity among Leftist sub-groups--white liberals, gay liberals, black liberals, etc--is even stronger still.

SWPLs = lockstep; Liberals as a whole = mostly lockstep; Conservatives = relatively ideologically diverse; Alternative right = herd of cats.

GSS variables used: YEAR(2000-2012), RACECEN1(1)(2)(4-10)(15-16)(2-16), POLVIEWS(1-3)(4)(5-7)

7 comments:

Dan said...

There is the age issue, which is a confounder. These other ethnic groups tend to be younger.

Clyde said...

It's not necessarily the (self-identified) liberal coalition that will fracture, it's the Democrat coalition. How many people vote Democrat but don't consider themselves liberal?

Only 31.4% of blacks are liberal, and 24.9% consider themselves conservative? Yet 95% vote Dem.

For Hispanics, the 30.0% calling themselves conservative probably vote reliably GOP, but the 37.9% who label themselves moderate are jut about locked in as Dems.

I don't think the above will actually lead to an ideological battle among conservative blacks and Hispanics vs. liberal ones; it just shows that self-identification can be misleading.

Racially, the problems will come when there isn't so much money from whitey to keep everyone fat and happy. When Hispanics become the favored minority of white Dems and blacks feel cast aside.

How many blue collar workers are generally conservative, but vote pro-union Dem out of their (perceived) short-term self-interest? How will they feel when they get cast aside for immigrant workers? Or when work keeps getting shut down for environmentalists?

**Thanks for the tip on using the GSS tools. I'll just take the time to read the manual if I can't figure anything else out.

Audacious Epigone said...

Dan,

Indeed, though it is nonetheless the picture of what we have.

Clyde,

The question regarding Hispanic moderates vs other moderates is an interesting one and the suggested answer seems intuitive to me but I'd like to look at it empirically, thanks.

Re: the GSS, don't hesitate to ask. I've spent a ton of time playing around with the interface.

JayMan said...

I think a key problem is this: self-identification is often worlds away from real-world behavior.

How many of those non-White self-described liberals embrace the social liberal values of their White counterparts? Many may be economic liberals - for clannish reasons - mainly because they'd be on the receiving end of any redistribution scheme.

Anonymous said...

How many of those non-White self-described liberals embrace the social liberal values of their White counterparts?

A majority of NAM voters such as Blacks and Amerindians tend to be matriarchal (single motherhood, low IQ, impulsive, violent crime, ghettoish) and "socially liberal".

The only ones who even come close to socially conservative (patriarchal) are certain Middle Easterners and Asians.

Clyde said...

These are examples of where the cracks will appear in the Democrat coalition:

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/212042-immigration-reform-hopes-dwindling#ixzz37GvYtLHj

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/14/obama-slammed-worst-president-ever-black-chicagoan/

For the Dems, diversity really has been a strength - more grievance groups to pit against white Christians. But even with this application of diversity, there is a tipping point - too many of the former and not enough of the latter. They're about to start fighting over the scraps.

The actual liberals very well may be in lockstep in their beliefs, but this doesn't measure the infighting that will occur when as the money runs out. A black liberal is a black first, a liberal second. Conservative blue collar workers union workers are often single issue (Democrat) voters. Etc.

Jack Burton said...

Non-whites aren't truly liberal though, they only vote liberal because it benefits them and hurts whites.