Methinks Jonathan Haidt Doth Protest Too Much: Southern Whites Edition
Lots of excellent pushback against Jonathan Haidt’s crazy assertion that Republicans have become the party of working people. A great takedown by Larry Bartells, you can follow the rest from there.
Haidt uses an awful lot of words, numbers, pictures, and general hand-waving to point out obscure the fact that white southern Democrats have gone Republican since the 60s. The “Southern Strategy” has worked.
As my teenage daughter would say, “no duh.”
Johnson predicted this when he passed civil rights legislation — the South has been lost to the Democrats “for a generation.” But Johnson may have underestimated the duration. These are the people, after all, who still haven’t accepted the fact that they lost the Civil War 147 years ago. Haidt’s apparently chosen role as an apologist for this group is…less than admirable.
Cross-posted at Asymptosis.
well, steve,
maybe that’s what working people want.
i can remember people saying, in the fifties, “the South shall rise again.” And here we are.
I have to say that watching “progressives” destroy Social Security gives me about the same feeling.
@coberly:
If I have to choose between foolish and venal, I know which one I’ll pick.
Steve: I thought I saw some numbers recently that indicated non-college educated whites have recently voted overwhelmingly GOP. Is this not true?
Little John,
Unless you vote Democrat, you are a racist.
Sammy, can you please troll some other blog and leave this one for grown-ups to post on?
Waddaya mean, lost the war? In the 1950s the battle cry was, The South shall rise again! Guess what, folks, it has!
Waddaya mean, lost the war? In the 1950s the battle cry was, The South shall rise again! Guess what, folks, it has!
Waddaya mean, lost the war? In the 1950s the battle cry was, The South shall rise again! Guess what, folks, it has!
Joel:
Every blog has a court jester.
little:
I would say you are correct.
@Little john:
Didn’t you go to the link? Bartels and Gelman your go-to guys on this. Bartels, at the link:
(4) While southern working whites without college degrees have become more Republican in their presidential voting behavior (by 4.5% per decade), non-southern working whites without college degrees have become more Democratic (by 1.6% per decade).
run,
I wish I was joking, but this seems to be the gist of Steve’s post.
Johnson may have lost the South (he thought that being President meant he could do the right thing regardless of political consequences, which is something we don’t see today), but public lynchings there are way down.
Sammy:
Read the article Steve puts out. The South may be going Republican but elsewhere, they are going Democrat.
If there is racism involved it is more along the lines of class identification. Moreso, I would look at education and also the driving forces which may create a split amongst races and class. Something I wrote on Poverty and Violence makes a pretty clear distinction:
“The poor man’s conscience is clear . . . he does not feel guilty and has no reason to . . . yet, he is ashamed. Mankind takes no notice of him. He rambles unheeded. In the midst of a crowd; at a church; in the market . . . he is in as much obscurity as he would be in a garret or a cellar. He is not disapproved, censured, or reproached; he is not seen . . . To be wholly overlooked, and to know it, are intolerable.” John Adams
Steve:
You are correct on the whole. I withdraw my comment to Little John.
Sammy, can you please troll some other blog and leave this one for grown-ups to post on?
@Wade,
Indeed. And I suppose we must be thankful for small favors. No slavery. Fewer lynchings. Eventually, the American South may enter the ranks of the civilized.
And little Sammy, before you attempt to troll this comment–I grew up in the American South at the end of American apartheid. Don’t bother pulling your juvenile s*** on me.
Joel,
before you attempt to troll this comment–I grew up in the American South at the end of American apartheid
This is very poor argument, even possibly non sequitur. However, at least you have thankfully dropped the “I am a Scientist” pretentions.
“However, at least you have thankfully dropped the “I am a Scientist” pretentions.”
Ah, little Sammy. It turns out I am a scientist, and have been for over 30 years. And you, poor Sammy, are still a sad little troll.
Now, would you please troll some other blog and leave this one for grown-ups to post on?
so who is venal?
besides the republicans and democrats?
i think the people in the south are victims of the propaganda they have been hearing since at least 1830. no different from the people in the north actually. except different propaganda.
as for “the party of working people” i think that means the party with successful propaganda directed at working people, not the party that actually does anything for working people…
which used to be the democrats, but, alas..
Indeed, The South Has Risen Again. And governs the U.S. through the animatronic corpse of the “Party of Lincoln”.
In Sammy’s American South, racism and discrimination never existed, lynchings and beatings never happened, the Klan was just a social club for refined gentlemen, and salvery was a liberal myth used to justify the Northern War of Aggression.
Ah sammy, I am a scientist AND I grew up in the delta of MS. I grew up in the overlap of apartheid. I am “friending” joel; whatever that means. Define “pretentions” in your world.
Sorry Steve I didn’t check the article before my initial comment. I have read it now and a blanket statement of, “the GOP is the party of the working class” is not true. But I think what Mr. Haidt may have been attempting to say is that the white, non-college eductaed vote is crucial to electoral success. I’ve tried to Google the article I recently read, with no luck. But the argument based on exit polling data is that for the Dems to have electoral victories the non-college educated white vote needs to be close, say 45-55. If it’s 60-40 in favor of the GOP the Dems lose. This general argument pertains to congressional as well as presidential years. I understand Judis and Texiera’s (sp?) argument about the demographics but I believe that the demographic changes will not be totally absorbed into voting trends for another generation.
True
but have you seen what “the party of Roosevelt” has been up to?
Unfortunately bigotry, hate and fear are not exclusive to the white southern male. It’s pervasive even if less so than in previous decades. Think of it as going from 95% prevalence to maybe 65%. No, those are not scientifically measured datum. But just take a look around you and keep your ears and eyes opened. One is likely to see a significant difference in such attitudes between educated and not educated groups, not simply college vs. no college. More likely a strong inverse relationship between level of educatiojn ond level of bigotry and prejudice. It seems self evident because of the underlying ignorance. But there are other factors b eyond education. I’d love to see a correlational combining level of education with income and/or wealth and their relationship to bigotry. it would be interesting to see the effect of wealth on prejudice. Just a guess, but I’d go with greater wealth equals increased prejudice when education is held constant. If geography X racial identity is truly a factor in bigotry I’d guess that wealth and education oare the actual underlying factors.
In the 60s and 70s liberal Democrats took every opportunity to remind us that southern whites were vicious racists, and northern working class whites were not much better.Of course the liberal Democrats rarely lived anywhere close to black folks, but that was the fault of the evil people who built suburbs.
Liberals proved their hypothesis with such brilliant programs as the Boston busing mess (I’m guessing no children of rich liberals rode school buses 4 hours a day).
Anyway, anyone who has spent any time in the south knows that stereotyping whites or blacks is mentally lazy and ofteninaccurate.
run
You’re only half right and not on all points. On some your way off the mark. As far as recism in the ’60s and ’70s is concerned I only have to remind you that the three kids who were murdered in Mississippi would not likely have been in near as much danger in NY, Chicago or LA. Also, I don’t recall a history of racial lynching in any part of the north or west coast. There had been a few racial incidents in NY and not all were properly ajudicated, especially when the police were involved. I can recall three specific and widely reported incidents of police related shootings of a black person though I know there were a few more. Still the north and the west coast don’t come close to the SE for racial crimes. That doesn’t mean that there is little racial bias in the NE or the west coast. There’s enough to be unacceptable and a source of continuous social tention.
I don’t disagree that programs like busing don’t work too well and may even add to animosity between races. Equal funding of schools would be a better answer, but local governments all over the country aren’t going to go there because that would raise the taxes of the very wealthy inorder to accomplish such a goal. “(I’m guessing no children of rich liberals rode school buses 4 hours a day).” What is wrong with that statement is that it attempts to include liberals of all income levels with rich liberals. I would suggest that in nearly all cases the term rich liberal is oxymoronic. Rich people do not inconvenience themselves for any reason.
Your’re certainly correct about the fault of stereotyping. Not all of any group exhibits the worst traits of their group. The group label has to be refined a bit. White, southern working class has a long way to go regarding bigotry and prejudice. So too do many other groups.
Jack:
You assune a lot from my few words.
When you refer to liberal Democrats attacking southern whites and northern working class whites as vicious racists, and rarely living anywhere close to black folks, and seeking to prove “their hypothesis,” I presume you mean to exclude the substantial percentage (maybe a third) of them who were themselves black. That is, you meant to exclude liberal Dems who were the victims of racism and who were loudly identifying the perps. I think you are stereotyping the concept of a liberal Dem to exclude minorities. This does make it much easier to suggest that they are ignorant hypocrites victimizing southern whites and northern working class whites.
It must be the substantive use of the few words that you chose to use that resulted in the communication of so much information. Your words speak volumes for themselves. I only interpreted the obvious and avoided assuming better or worse.
In fact I erroneously addressed my comment to your remark(s) which were too brief to warrant such an in depth analysis. While I think it should have been apparent that I was replying to s-t-r-b’s comment that appears just above mine.
Correction of erronious address:
s-t-r-b,
You’re only half right and not on all points. On some your way off the mark. As far as recism in the ’60s and ’70s is concerned I only have to remind you that the three kids who were murdered in Mississippi would not likely have been in near as much danger in NY, Chicago or LA. Also, I don’t recall a history of racial lynching in any part of the north or west coast. There had been a few racial incidents in NY and not all were properly ajudicated, especially when the police were involved. I can recall three specific and widely reported incidents of police related shootings of a black person though I know there were a few more. Still the north and the west coast don’t come close to the SE for racial crimes. That doesn’t mean that there is little racial bias in the NE or the west coast. There’s enough to be unacceptable and a source of continuous social tention.
I don’t disagree that programs like busing don’t work too well and may even add to animosity between races. Equal funding of schools would be a better answer, but local governments all over the country aren’t going to go there because that would raise the taxes of the very wealthy inorder to accomplish such a goal. “(I’m guessing no children of rich liberals rode school buses 4 hours a day).” What is wrong with that statement is that it attempts to include liberals of all income levels with rich liberals. I would suggest that in nearly all cases the term rich liberal is oxymoronic. Rich people do not inconvenience themselves for any reason.
Your’re certainly correct about the fault of stereotyping. Not all of any group exhibits the worst traits of their group. The group label has to be refined a bit. White, southern working class has a long way to go regarding bigotry and prejudice. So too do many other groups.
Jack:
NP. We are both pretty much on the same page on most things. Your address surprised me. I do have a post coming out on violence, shme, and poverty if I ever get some time to complete it.