Monday, June 04, 2018

Racial preferences are unpopular; Or why the Sailer Strategy is an electoral winner

Running against affirmative action--with campaign ads showing white men and women coming home to somberly deliver bad news to the family about being passed over for the job or promotion--is a political winner. Or at least it would be if the Stupid Party had the sense to capitalize on it.

In fairness to the GOP, they are pushing hard on immigration, at least in the primaries. Stopping the invasion now regularly tops issue priority lists, especially among young Republicans. It's a happy reminder to those of us who've been in this thing for decades that the National Question has finally obtained the salience it deserves.

Anyway, from the GSS comes the percentages of respondents, by selected demographic characteristics, who support preferential hiring and promotional opportunities for blacks in the workplace. For contemporary relevance, all responses are from America's post-racial era. The data is dichotomous--respondents either support or oppose, no "don't know" or "unsure" responses were recorded:


Even most Jewish Democrats say they are opposed. So do blacks. Whether they are actually opposed, a residual sense of fairness means advocating for racial preferences is something only downwardly mobile non-white college students who don't belong anywhere near a university and the blue checkmark brigade on Twitter do much of.

In Republican primaries there is scarcely a position more popular than opposition to affirmative action. Opposition to affirmative action leads to opposition to Diversity!. Opposition to Diversity! leads to opposition to disparate impact. Opposition to disparate impact leads to a sense of white identity. Without unadulterated isonomy and freedom of association, identity politics becomes a necessity. Opposition to affirmative action is prerequisite for getting there.

GSS variables used: AFFRMACT(1-2)(3-4), RACECEN1(1)(2)(4-10), HISPANIC(1)(2-50), RELIG(1,2,4-13)(3), PARTYID(0-1)(2-4)(5-6), YEAR(2008-2016)

23 comments:

216 said...

People might oppose the principle of affirmative action, but they rarely oppose it in practice. The GOP supermajority in the Ohio state government and the GOP governor have never moved against affirmative action. The GOP governor and supermajority in Michigan didn't stop the UM from hiring 100 diversicrats, even though the MI voters banned AA in 2006. Michigan even has the advantage of electing the University Regents, but the MI voters have never handed the GOP a majority there.

And lets not forget that a majority now supports making universities "tuition free" and doubling the minimum wage. That will attract the two digit IQ voter far more than "dey took er jerbs".

snorlax said...

The numbers are artificially low because the liberal position is that AA corrects for the effect of "racism" such that there's no net preference.

Jig Bohnson said...

Only 43% of Black Democrats support AA for blacks? Can this be??

@snorlax: Interestingly, countering the effects of racism is not the "official" rationale for AA anymore, because the SCOTUS struck it down as such at some point. They did allow AA to the extent 'diversity is a laudable goal in of itself' which is now the official rationale for it parroted in left-leaning talking points.

Anonymous said...

It could also be the Dunning-Kruger Effect (lower IQ = higher self-confidence). A low percentage of them support affirmative action because they sincerely believe they don't need it.

Joe Suber said...

"Candidate GOPguy wants fairness in the workplace and will get rid of the old discriminatory hiring restrictions supported by Nancy Pelosi. That means better paying jobs and a better economy for the Xth District" - accompanied by pics of huwites shaking hands and smiling.

"GOPguy wants merit-based admissions to our universities and training programs. DEMx and Nancy Pelosi want illegal immigrants to get the first chance at scholarships..."

Audacious Epigone said...

216,

The same can be said about immigration restrictionism or interior enforcement--or hell, populist policies in general. The good thing about the collapse in trust in both the major parties is that genuine political mavericks--not fake ones like John McCain (heaven bless his cancer)--will increasingly gain traction even without big money behind them.

snorlax,

The phrasing matters, too. If instead of talking about preferential treatment for blacks, it was something like "to you support hiring decisions designed to correct historical grievances?", the percentages would probably be higher across the board. But as far as the de facto white party using this to its rhetorical advantage, that doesn't really matter--frame it in the same way the GSS does.

Jig,

It's surprising to me, too, that most blacks participating in the GSS said they opposed preferential hiring and promotions for blacks. They had to choose "oppose" and not just fail to say they support. Hey, I just report what I find!

Joe,

Yeah, there are lots of ways to turn this into rhetorical gold.

Black Death said...

AA is just part of the grab-bag of goodies that the Dems use to buy minority votes and keep them on the ol' plantation. Among the many reasons AA is bad (e.g., you don't end discrimination by continuing to practice it) is that it demeans the achievements of minority members who rise to the top - everyone thinks (but would never say, of course) that that new black VP or doctor got there because of AA, not on his or her own merits.

216 said...

Black Death,

The "plantation" trope is overused and patronizing. Blacks want redistribution, this opinion should be treated honestly. We need to abandon a rhetoric that alleges that blacks are "bought" or "tricked" and start using a rhetoric that accuses blacks of being "envious" and "contemptuous".

There is nothing wrong with a private institution having affirmative action. But if Harvard wants to discriminate in favor of Jews/Blacks, Notre Dame should be unapologetic about discriminating in favor of Catholics.

Rather, affirmative action is a whip used by the GOP since Nixon to scare the base. The GOP politicians have never abolished affirmative action, despite several opportunities. It always has lost due to ballot initiatives, a legacy of 19th century Progressives. The judiciary is never going to abolish AA, because the ABA commands its existence in every accredited law school.

lineman said...

Amen on that...Thing is 216 the government will never do anything that takes power from themselves so why do we waste time, energy, and argument on if it's a left or right issue...

Feryl said...

216:

Most "conservative elites" are B(c)uckley types anxious to be "respectable". The more un-PC ones are primarily cultural warrior D-bags who inveigh against the Left's plan to exterminate babies, not support Israel, and teach gay sex to toddlers. There are exceedingly few Pat Buchanan types whose priority is preservation of Western European traditions and values. Most American elites (as is the case throughout the English speaking world), if they're on the Right, are still at war against BadWhites before anyone else. (white) Leftists are blamed for spreading atheism, relativism, and an unseemly dependence on institutions outside the nuclear family and church. It's great that while white people are waging scorched Earth against each other in the West, their own numbers have proportionally dropped across the globe.

The Buchanan types for several decades have tried (in vain) to drop partisan fervor among whites in exchange for tribal camaraderie with which to face the challenges that all tribes will face. But let's not forget that the Boomers, in terms of the the climate they created, is rich in opportunities for divisive soapboxing but devoid of healthy collective strength and cooperation. And that's why corporate board rooms, public schools, mainstream churches, the media, and the government are so debauched. Individual Rightists might at least have the right idea, but they are flaccid at getting results, because the Right has self-selected itself into impotence by constantly rejecting the notion of collectivist action for 40-50 years. Why did the rejection happen? I think it's because Boomers in particular couldn't stomach the notion of ignoring their sense of self-grandiosity so as to better get along with others and strengthen institutions. Cultural Leftism has thrived in this atomized environment.

Lastly, there's the moronic tendency for the modern Right to torch most institutions, deliberately weaken them, instead of ya know, ACTUALLY ENSURING THAT INSTITUTIONS FOR SEVERAL GENERATIONS BE ALLOWED TO GET STRONGER UNDER THE AEGIS OF CONSERVATIVES. The deliberate assault on many institutions in the name of greater personal freedom created a free for all, in which Left wing nihilism has thrived. Nowadays, even the military and the business world are fully dedicated to cultural Leftism. That's what happens when institutions corrode from degeneracy oozing out of decadent generations. Not that it changes the substance of cuck inc. mailers whining about big gov., unions, and the ACLU, as every.single.institution. has become a nest of vipers, but since when would you expect 60 or 70 year old cucks to give up the Kool Aid they've been drinking for 50 years?

From 1900-1970, collective action and strong institutions largely coincided with personal discipline and cultural conservatism. Then in the 70's, The New Right popularized hooey about supply side economics/social Darwinism and such, which quickly gained prominence among Boomers who felt as if they had no obligation to support anyone but themselves and their immediate families. Well, funny, the New Left's message of hedonistic drug and sexual experimentation neatly fit into the ethos of "freedom" that Boomers embraced. The level of narcissism, cruelty, and general degeneracy that began to flourish in the 70's on a mainstream level was equally the fault of the Left and the Right, which junked decades of progress and discipline in favor of preaching a sociopathic ideology that's annihilated Western Civ.

Audacious Epigone said...

216/linemen/Feryl,

All the things identified are things the alt right (or dissident right, etc) is largely aware of, and things are slowly changing from the ground up, whether it be in terms of conference attendance at something like AmRen--yes, it's just a few hundred people, but a decade ago they couldn't get a quarter of that number, and for every one who shows up, 100 are following the events, 1,000 are are explicitly sympathetic, 10,000 are implicitly sympathetic, 100,000 are potentially sympathetic, etc--or in issue polling, where immigration now regularly tops the list among Republicans after never being able to break into even the top five a decade ago.

216 said...

AE,

Certainly inspiring, but the AWB also performed a similar carnival during the twilight of apartheid. The mainstream has a very effective chilling effect, where any dissent will lead to financial/social ruin. I never got into campus politics for this reason, and I don't do social media. If President-for-Life Harris is installed by 2020/4, I will be underground. All it takes is one "journalist" to destroy you.

It has been almost impossible to attempt the building of a mass movement with local chapters. You get infiltrated by police informants/undercovers. Tommy Robinson/Roosh V were undermined by something like this. 2010 was a major setback when the Tea Party fizzled and didn't take the Senate.

Anonymous said...

216,

I don't buy that. Mass movements building local chapters is the best way to go. Any movement can (and will, if it's popular and/or threatening enough) be infiltrated. That becomes irrelevant the second they seize power anyways. While nazi references are typically dull, it's hilarious to note that hitler was a 34 year old high school dropout that joined what would later become the NSDAP when he was ordered to investigate/infiltrate them by the government. How'd that work out for the Weimar Republic?

When you're building any political movement, spies are really just par for the course.

I see no reason not to offer free college and whatever other handouts the masses want as long as we can get our immigration moratorium. You can always rebuild an economy, you can't un-displace a people without massive amounts of violence.

Mr. Rational said...

you can't un-displace a people without massive amounts of violence.

Not so.  You can take away the things that caused the displacement in the first place.  Jobs, welfare, housing... holding immigrant parents responsible for the crimes of their minor children and giving them a choice between cutoff of all benefits or paid repatriation with a stipend would clear a lot of them out without a drop of blood spilled.

You could do this for non-immigrants too.  Consider if entire families in Detroit had the option of doing without all public assistance or moving to Liberia at public expense because their kids keep offending.  You'd both clear out offenders and generate some serious pressure to behave.

lineman said...

Is that a reality though at this stage in the game or just more wishful thinking? Cutting off the only thing that is holding the Jungle back I think would cause the massive amounts of violence you were trying to avoid...JMHO

Audacious Epigone said...

Mr. Rational,

Right, especially with secession. For sake of argument, consider the states as 50 sovereign countries. West Virginia is poor and its residents have strong anti-immigrant sentiment. It is almost a guarantee that West Virginia would become even whiter than it already is in the case of political dissolution.

lineman,

The cut will not be intentional but it will happen. It seems--feels--impossible until it happens.

Feryl said...

"2010 was a major setback when the Tea Party fizzled and didn't take the Senate."

The Tea Party offered no real change of pace, and it was almost totally a Boomer thing. There was no Meme War at that time. It was heavily supported by cuck inc.

Trump and associated figures and developments had virtually no institutional support and were largely hated by elites. The Tea Party irritated the Left and some conservatives, but was largely thought of as a slightly more aggressive outpouring of the sentiment that's existed in our politics since the 70's.

Mr. Rational said...

The Tea Party ... was heavily supported by cuck inc.

The TEA (Taxed Enough Already) party was co-opted by the Cuckservatives, who then sank most of its candidates by pushing Democrats if they managed to win nomination.  This perfidy did not go un-noticed.

Feryl said...

And the animosity towards taxes has done what, exactly, in the last 40+ years? The defining trait of cucks is that they are so devoted to crank Dickensian/social Darwin economics that civic and institutional culture rots away, and contributes to cycles of moral degeneracy, corruption, and cultural destabilization.

Instead of acting as if the absence of powerful institutions would create the closest thing possible to Heaven on Earth, wake up and smell the coffee: Conservatives (who are not really traditionalists necessarily) let private forces (e.g, individual elites) set the tone of how our government (and everything else) is run. Economic/structural Leftist measures (such as reduced privatization, greater wealth redistribution/taxes on the wealthy, reduced financial speculation, reduction in abusive loans, etc.) become less common to the delight of conservatives, while surprise surprise surprise, moral/cultural Leftism flourishes. The "free agent" mentality provides opportunities for individual affluence while also breaking down behavioral barriers.

Pat Buchanan placed the peace and progress of Western man ahead of the "freedom" of degenerates to simultaneously pile up goodies, use cheap labor, and promote indifference to behavioral excess. We need to nip hedonism and greed in the bud, and playing the greatest hits of 1984 and 1994 is not gonna cut it. That's what we got from the Me Generation, whose values basically consisted of: "don't tell me what to do". It's why I get mailers from conservative groups still decrying regulation and taxes (with token references to border security and crime control). Jesus H. Christ, could it be any more stale? If your 50 or 70 and your brain is too frozen to consider new ideas after it got locked into bad old ideas, then step aside and let the real populists and stabilizers do their thing.

No matter how they gloss it up, it always boils down to the immaturity of not placing the long term interests of others ahead of yourself. Part of growing up is realizing that you must accept tighter boundaries in return for security and stability. The Me Generation vowed to wreck those boundaries, because they wanted unlimited freedom to seek excitement and pleasure with no regard for it's effects on others.

Jonathan Centauri said...

This poll can be summed up with: blacks don't want jobs they want money.
The Orientals are beginning to find out that THEY have the Highest disadvantage in the low IQ putsch. This is ALREADY doing TERRIBLE things to the crazy quilt. Mexicans are ethnically cleansing California of da blacks. The bloods and crips have paused their gang war cause La Raza be capping they ass. The fat black wimmens beez all: get the White women out. The unraveling.
This is the year the Lincoln Party DIES. Rat Ryan and "No Chin" Chinese McCuckold is pushing amnesty through. GOOD-BYE TO YOU.

No Way to avoid Civil War II. This System is TOO DUMB for that.

America First was all just a LIE.
Iran or Korea is where Trump's future will DIE.

lineman said...

Well the 64 dollar question has always been with anything along those lines is will it happen before we are destroyed...I really don't like relying on chance for my future unless the odds are stacked in my favor...Even then its a crap shoot...

lineman said...

Well said very well said... Problem is they can't let go and will fight(the very ones trying to save them) playing right into the commies hands...

lineman said...

Thing is people thought Trump was going to be their Savior without having to put any skin in the game...All Trump has done is turn down the heat a couple notches on the pot us frogs are all boiling in...And your right people are just too damn dumb or scared to jump out of the pot...