Monday, January 22, 2018

California's illiberal arts colleges

Some interesting observations from a SurveyUSA poll on Californians (N = 909):

- Trump's approval rating in California is 30% approve, 60% disapprove. That compares unfavorably to his putative national approval rating of 37% approve, 58% disapprove. Trump's approval is only 9 points worse in a state he lost by 29 points than it is in the entire country? He lost the national popular vote by 2. Something doesn't add up.

I think this is indicative of the country being so disunited, those living in it so antagonistic towards so much of the rest of the population, that we've now reached a point where it's conceivable that no elected national politician ever cracks the 50% approval mark. With a couple of brief exceptions in 2012 and after Trump won the 2016 election, even the lord savior Obama couldn't manage it after his first few months in office in 2008. Until hard political dissolution occurs, every president is facing the prospect of being underwater from the outset and remaining there for the duration of the presidency.

Reelections will still be able to occur within that framework, though. The upside is that Trump's low reported approval rating will not preclude a second term.

- Of the seven hypothetical 2020 presidential election matchups presented, Trump fares better in every one of them than he ended up faring against Hillary in the state in 2016. His toughest opponent is Tom Hanks (!), followed closely by Oprah. The matchups against politicians Kristen Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, and Eric Garcetti are all tighter. A couple of Current Years ago, we couldn't elect Trump because he wasn't qualified, he didn't have the political experience! How expediency times change.

Some will see this as a slide towards idiocracy, others as a refreshing rejection of the quotidian political establishment. I lean towards the latter. Your mileage will vary.

- Speaking of Oprah, she gets the strongest stated black support at 81%, while the Becky Gillibrand garners the least black support of any Trump challenger, at 61%.

- The following graph shows the percentages who say "certain speech is okay to silence" subtracted from the percentages who say free speech is an "absolute right", by selected demographic characteristics:


As goes California so goes the country? It is often said that leftists are the new authoritarians, but survey data pretty consistently shows liberals as the strongest proponents of free speech, at least in an abstract sense. This is the first quantitative treatment of free speech I've seen where conservatives come off as stronger proponents of free speech than liberals (and moderates) do.

Even more jarring is the inverse relationship between educational attainment and support for free speech. That definitely indicates a break from the past. The idea that academia is a place for the open exchange of ideas is an anachronism. It has become a place of intellectual indoctrination, not of intellectual exploration.

The relatively strong Hispanic showing is curious, as free speech has historically been a white thing. Middle American whites are an endangered species in California, so it's hard to extrapolate to the rest of the country from this.

Black and female opposition to free speech is par for the course, however.

- By a 3-to-1 margin, white respondents who have an opinion on the wall--it's worth noting that half of respondents think a wall would make no difference one way or another--say it would make them feel safer. Blacks and Asians are also slightly more likely than not to say they'd feel safer with a wall. Hispanics, in contrast, say they'd feel less safe, presumably because said wall would presage a step up in deportations as well. If only!

- Diversity is strength... it's also idleness. The percentages of respondents who have never been employed, by race:


The WASP work ethic is so 1950s.

23 comments:

Realist said...

Doesn't speak well for college graduates.

mark auld said...

Many interesting points, however my 1 comment is concerning the coming breakup of the U.S.into ethno states; May it be relatively peaceful.

DissidentRight said...

I think this is indicative of the country being so disunited, those living in it so antagonistic towards so much of the rest of the population, that we've now reached a point where it's conceivable that no elected national politician ever cracks the 50% approval mark.

That is insightful. The two-party system obscures America’s multi-factional nature.

The Right - Alt vs. Civic & Urban vs. Rural
The Left - SJW progressives vs. Classical liberals
Fake America - Blacks vs. Mexicans
Normie America - Can’t we just get along?

May it be relatively peaceful.

If not, God will sort the dead.

Anonymous said...

I did't expect the huge difference between men and women. It makes sense that women who use words as a weapon to backstab and undermine each other are more concerned with policing what people can and can't say.

Social ostracisation is also a much more salient thing for women, so as long as PC is the sanctioned regime women will go along with it. Expect a U-turn much more significant than for men if and when this is no longer the case.

Audacious Epigone said...

Realist,

Nope. Evidence for what many of us sense has happened.

mark auld,

Very much hope so. The sooner break up occurs, the more likely it is to be relatively peaceful.

Dissident Right,

I suspect when it happens it will be peaceful. I simply see no appetite for military-grade violence against millions of people. Hell, a violent response wasn't even that popular in the 18th century, and we're a lot more pacifistic than our ancestors back then were!

mark auld said...

I think this is where I say ...thank God it's God's job.

mark auld said...

Well said.

Anonymous said...

Yay for conservative uneducated Hispanic men!

Martin

DissidentRight said...

AE:

I don't think there will be (much) punitive, vengeful violence. But even in a circumstance with minimal relocation (and maximal political separatism), the liberals and non-whites we'll separating from have a historical tendency to want to follow us around. The Right will have to aggressively enforce the new borders.

And economic restructuring will hit urban centers pretty hard.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

If the US divides into several ethnostates, it'll be hard to tell what the outcome will be. The divide is going to hard to split up geographically because of the "Clinton Archipelago", a term coined by Ryan Landry. I'm sure 95% of the land mass is agreeable to being in a white ethnostate, it's the 5% of land mass for urban areas that wants the opposite. It'll be hard to divide it appropriately. Even in a place like California, geographically most of the state votes red. Will they want to join the white ethnostate? I'm sure they want to.

I used to be all for the splitting apart of the US but I don't see it happening cleanly. That's why I think it's more and more important to just whiten the United States again. Do whatever we can to expel as many non-whites as we can. Will we return to pre-1965 levels? With enough effort, it's possible. It might be easier than we think: no welfare for immigrants, mandatory e-verify, build the wall, and enforce voter laws and visa limits. Over time, millions of non-whites will just leave, which will turn things around. The best part is that this is all possible and with a reinvigorated GOP, it's within the realm of possibility.

Audacious Epigone said...

Dissident Right,

Agreed. I'd rather live in Poland or Hungary, GDP and all, than in Britain or Germany. Probably today, almost certainly so a generation down the road. But in the American context, it's not obvious that the leftist diversatopia would be the more affluent part of the country, even with a lot of the big cities. I suspect a lot of SWPLs would discretely start petitioning for entry into the new identitarian state(s). We see a foreshadowing of this with tech companies moving to Texas and North Carolina already.

Audacious Epigone said...

Random Dude,

That's a great summation of why, after I started riding the secession horse around 2010, I straddled the pre-1965 American horse once Trump announced his campaign. Three things, all rather simple (if not easy) get us most of the way there:

1) A moratorium on immigration lasting at least a generation
2) Repatriation of all non-citizens
3) Native fertility returning to replacement level (or higher)

silly girl said...


"The relatively strong Hispanic showing is curious, as free speech has historically been a white thing."
.
.

This continues to be a blind spot for people.

Lots of hispanics are white.

Consider this. Let's say the country were obsessed with people who were of Irish descent. So, on forms you could could chose black, white non-Irish, Indian, Asian, or Irish. So, your grandma is Irish and she talks about growing up in Ireland, blah blah, etc. Lots of people in your community are Irish. You are part Irish. What do you check off? Irish or white non-Irish? Lots of people would go ahead and check off Irish because checking off white non-Irish feels weird. I mean, why does someone have to so explicitly deny having any Irish ancestry?

Anonymous said...

"Free Speech" as an abstract concept expanded greatly after the 1960s. Prior to then it was understood that obscenity and subversion were not protected under law. Much hay has been made about the ACLU supporting the Skokie Nazi march, but the reason they did that was to protect the legality of porn, not of political speech.

For the Alt-Lite, who are really just ClassicLib, "free speech" is something worth fighting for. But the Right is about permanence, not abstractions.

Anonymous said...

For the chart showing never employed by race, the white, black, and Hispanic numbers work out pretty well to I.Q. For instance, if you play around with this bell curve calculator you can see what I'm talking about:

http://onlinestatbook.com/2/calculators/normal_dist.html

Enter the following values:

White: IQ 100, SD 15, Below IQ 78 and you get about 7 percent.

Black: IQ 85, SD 12, Below IQ 78 and you get about 28 percent to the chart's 24.

Hispanics: IQ 90, SD 13, Below IQ 78 and you get about 18 percent to the chart's 19.

Asian doesn't make any sense though, so these numbers must be mostly non Chinese, Japanese, Korean Asians.

Asians: IQ 104, SD 15, you end up with only 4 percent with IQ under 90.

chris said...

Irish is a subset of white. Hispanic is not a subset of white, as it includes many people who are not white (as well as some who are white).

Audacious Epigone said...

silly girl,

Echoing Christ, sure, there are problems both with making it exclusive--as you point out--and making it separate from race--because white data becomes contaminated. Still, there'll be a lot more Amerindian ancestry in the "Hispanic" category than the "non-Hispanic white" one, and more European in the latter.

Anon,

Asian immigrants have higher welfare usage than native whites. Presumably fewer women working as well, as they've not realized how liberating it is to spend prime reproductive years filling out TPS reports in a cubicle instead of nurturing the next generation.

szopen said...

I'd rather live in Poland or Hungary, GDP and all, than in Britain or Germany. Probably today, almost certainly so a generation down the road.

Don't be so sure about my country. Poland is facing a huge demographic crisis just ahead; the economy is tightly tied to the Germany; and has a growing caste of domestic SJWs, who are currently kept at bay, but they already are discussing what woudl they want to do, when they will win ("inevitably, when the older uneducated nationalist electorate would die out"). Also, the inequality levels were quickly rising to the levels of the western Europe, once Kaczyński will die his minions will start to fight over the leadership with disastrous results...

And the anti-immigration rhetoric is really weak, as everyone seems to keenly admit they are all for emigration from Africa, as long as they all would be Christian.

Yeah, as they say: when you see a light in a tunnely, don't overdo with optimism. The light might come from incoming train.

Anonymous said...

Szopen,

How deep is the animosity towards Russia, and how common is the belief that they killed Kacynski's twin brother?

Is there anyone trying to import the Israeli model to increase native fertility rates?

Is Belarus saner?

szopen said...

How deep is the animosity towards Russia,
Quite deep. I am talking here about animosity toward the state, not the people, mind you - though the animosity toward the people also worsened recently. In the last CBOS I know, the sympathy towards Russians was declared by 22% of the polled, while animosity was declared by 50%.

About the state: 46% thinks friendly relations between Poland and Russia are possible, 43% thinks friendly relations are impossible. Note that in 2010 the percentage was 70% thinking friendly relations are possible, 22% thinking impossible.

The problem is that Russia sometimes do act strangely - as with the random embargoes on Polish products or attitude on the questions related to free passage from Калининградский залив. In many such cases Russia's actions seem irrational, because what they do contradicts what they leaders are saying officially, making them seem as liars, or as if they were sabotaged by lower-tier officials.

Then there is question os espionage, gas prices, and, of course - the history. Soviets murdered tens of thousands, arrested and deported hundreds of thousands and then forced murderous regime on us. The fact that Russia seem still think communism was not that bad is a bit detrimental.


how common is the belief that they killed Kacynski's twin brother
18% believes, 67% does not believe.
However the fact that Russians created a report which astonishingly blamed everything on Polish crew (despite quite obvious faults of their own) was not seen well in Poland.

Is there anyone trying to import the Israeli model to increase native fertility rates?
Don't know that model. The current government is the first ever which actually tries to do anything to increase the fertility, using quite generous welfare with 500+ program ie. 500PLN monthly given to every family for second, third and so on child. This program was denounced as cheap populism by the opposition, who also claimed that this is why Law and Justice still keeps very high standing in the polls: that it supposedly bought uneducated and poor losers (which is wrong by every poll, but the stereotypes run deep). OTOH it's true that we should have budget surplus, and instead we are running another year on deficit (at least this deficit is lower than usual, which does not prevent mainstream media to claim we are in catastrophic situation and situation is the worst ever).

But the actions to increase fertility are too few, too late. I become interested in demography about ten years ago and at that time demographers were saying that it's already too late to do anything to keep population level steady, but we could do at least something to mitigate the effects of low birth rate. Since that time no one was doing nothing, large proportion of young, educated Poles left Poland and right now all we can do is to pray for a miracle.

Is Belarus saner?
No.

DrAndroSF said...

As much as I would like The Wall, and I would, I regard it as a too-late symbol of an earlier failure, the post-WWII failure of White Male self-confidence, which, had it continued to flourish, would have resulted in the swift militarization of the border and the use of armed force against foreign invaders. The failure of Europeans and Americans to use their massive militaries against tens of millions of hostile aliens, just because they are not conventionally armed, is, to me, one of the most astounding and fateful collapses of civilizational identity and will in all of history.

We have become, practically overnight, a society which, like it or not, will bomb the sh*t out of Third World countries (and Balkan Christians) but will refuse even to think of resisting the Third World invasion of our homelands with bullets.
And Europeans are practically forbidden to defend their own actual dwellings from invasion and violence.

I know of no other such bizarre calamity in all of the known record. So the Wall, witout the will, will not solve our problem.

silly girl said...

My point about the white category vs. white non-hispanic is that we would get better data if we listed white rather than white non-hispanic. Some forms now have two separate items. One for race and a separate question regarding hispanic background.

So, people who are white and hispanic who then answer questions give different answers from those who are non-white and hispanic.

Audacious Epigone said...

szopen,

Thanks. I always get a sinking feeling, borne of my awareness of how limited my knowledge is, that whenever I celebrate a putatively confident country, I'm coming off as a pollyanna.

DrAndroSF,

Yes, our civilization is a historical rarity in that we seem to be headed towards voluntarily extinction (for Rome to qualify, Constantinople has to be ignored).

On the other hand, the wall has the potential of becoming a firm, virile symbol that helps reawaken our confidence.