Monday, March 26, 2007

Black's just dandy, but a Mormon?

The WSJ/NBC poll referenced in the previous post contains another bit of interesting information. The pollsters probed for potential novel attributes of Bush's successor that gave the survey participants concern.

Despite all the hoopla that's being made over a prospective black President, the American public is quite comfortable with the idea. It's the well-behaved, innocuous followers of Joseph Smith that get people twisting in their seats. The percentage of people who said that the corresponding attribute for which they either "have some reservations about" or are "very uncomfortable with":

Mormon -- 38%
Oldest ever elected -- 30%
Married to Bill (!) -- 28%
Female -- 23%
Twice divorced -- 21%
Hispanic -- 20%
Black -- 13%

The vast majority of Americans are not irrationally racist. Most are worried about an increase in the number of blacks and Hispanics, but for reasons that are very much factually grounded--higher crime rates, lower earning power and levels of educational attainment, lower literacy and English fluency rates, their roles as vectors of disease, and so on (all on average compared to the current population). Filter the results restrictively enough, and we'll probably even welcome a smurf. This is something that open borders supporters often cannot grasp.

We still judge individuals as individuals. As a nation of European descent, we put a great deal of emphasis on that.


JSBolton said...

Too much emphasis on that, if it means that we have an enforceable obligation to judge, and to judge individuals as such.
Aggression by the government is being used to enforce such anti-discrimination; while, self-contradictorily,
the majority is treated as a holistic magical entity with attributes of guilt and obligation towards those who would need individual treatment.
All of this happens because there is no rational argument which can support the grant of dictatorial powers to officials.
The power-greedy have to use smears instead, very much as if they were saying:
the only reason anyone would not give us this power is because of racism.
By then, racism has become defined as opposition to aggrandizement of official power, in the manner of Castro.

JSBolton said...

This is why it plays into the hands of the power-gredy to say:
we're not prejudiced!,
Americans are not racist, etc.-
it reinforces an ideal which you can have too much of,
since insistence on individual judgement can and does involve state aggression, and because you're on the defensive, when the power-greedy
ought to be upbraided for their attempted power-grab.

crush41 said...


Yes, way too many supposed conservative thinkers spend too much time professing how un-racist they are, knowing that destruction can await one who makes any moderate attempt at talking about race candidly.

I look at merit, and that is determinable at the individual level. Such an emphasis will show variance among groups, but it excludes group entirely.

That's the extent of time to which I will spend on the defensive.

Igor said...

I wonder if a potential candidate would be a Muslim, what would people say? I bet fewer people would say they would be concerned about him than about a Mormon. Just shows how screwed up whites are.

crush41 said...


That would be interesting to see the question posed. Barack Obama might have been, his history would've allowed for it.