Subscribe via RSS Feed

Charles Murray Ponders Why Minorities Don’t Vote Republican

[ 106 ] November 26, 2012 |

Well, that went about as badly as you would expect.   I’m becoming particularly amused by the “it’s a dirty, dirty trick to point out the policies on reproductive and LBGT rights that Republicans favor” routine.

Comments (106)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. rea says:

    Gosh, the beatings continuted and the morale did not improve–it’s inexplicable!

    • Ken says:

      “I’m horrified! I smeared my opponent, bribed the press to be on my side, and threatened to torture the electorate if we lost. I fail to see what more a decent politician could have done.”

      Pitt the Even Younger, Blackadder the Third Episode 1, Dish and Dishonesty

  2. sharculese says:

    Look, everyone knows Asian-Americans love being patronizingly referred to as a model minority. Charles Murray is just helpfully pointing out what they need to do if they don’t wanna lose that privilege.

  3. c u n d gulag says:

    GOP POV:
    Oh, if only we could open up those slanted yellow eyes so that they could see the prefidity of the DemocRAT Party!

  4. MosesZD says:

    When I was a young staff accountant (Big 8) I made friends with the firm’s recruiter. What I learned really opened my eyes.

    Big CPA firms deliberately discriminate against Asian Americans. Asians have to have higher GPAs to get interviews and fewer of them — qualification to qualification — get hired than whites. They were also more likely to be laid off and more likely to end up dead-ended.

    And it’s not like it surprised me. I suspected it because during recruiting the Asian kids always did worse than equally qualified white kids. For example, if you were Asian with a 3.5 GPA… You might get three interviews and get one job offer. While a white kid with the same GPA would get six interviews and two or three job offers.

    It was disgusting and within two months of getting my CPA license I was “good bye and good riddance.” My dream of being a Big 8 CPA partner was simply not worth being around those assholes…

    • Malaclypse says:

      (Big 8)

      You’re really dating yourself here.

    • Anonymous says:

      ah, those were the days! my professional experience with those assholes (arthur anderson, anyone?) is similar. i found intellectual and monetary reward elsewhere.

      “conservative scholar” is, by definition, an oxymoron, and charles murray certainly qualifies in the moron dept. the bottom line: the majority of the voting public decided they didn’t care for a patriarchal theocracy as gov’t. this isn’t a difficult concept. until the republicans decide they want more than that demographic in their party, they’ll just continue circling the drain.

      good riddance.

    • john says:

      No different than what happens in college admissions, but nobody seems to mind that part.

  5. Murc says:

    I actually read the whole thing, rather than the Prospect rundown, and it’s sort of adorable.

    Murray is just so damn convinced that the Republican Party is identified with Liberty and Freedom and Unicorns and Candy, and why can’t all these people who love those things see that and vote for them? There is perfidy afoot!

    Precious.

    On a more serious note, while Charles Murray is just… shockingly racist, I don’t really see lumping minority groups into broad, sweeping generalizations as being hugely racist. It’s just… well, something that happens. The white vote in this country is incredibly diverse, but people often talk about it as a monolith; ditto the latino vote and the asian vote and the Jewish vote and the etc etc. We’ve done it here, more than once, and it’s not like LGM is a hotbed of racial tension.

    • Uncle Kvetch says:

      The white vote in this country is incredibly diverse, but people often talk about it as a monolith

      I disagree. You hear about “southern whites” or “working- (or middle-) class whites” or “angry white men,” or other categories that are presumed to be white by default (“soccer moms,” “Reagan democrats”), but there is simply nowhere near the same tendency to conflate “the white vote” as there is with the other groups you mention.

      • STH says:

        The way the media lumps people into groups is pretty unsophisticated in general. For example, I kept hearing about “single women” voting for Obama and “married women” going for Romney, but it was never broken down beyond that. For example, marital status among American women is confounded with race, so if we control for race, does the relationship between marital status and voting patterns hold up?

        • Uncle Kvetch says:

          For example, I kept hearing about “single women” voting for Obama and “married women” going for Romney, but it was never broken down beyond that.

          And yet (and correct me if I’m wrong here) I can’t recall seeing any pundits stroke their chins about “single men” or “married men,” as if either group were an undifferentiated mass.

          • Actually, I think the answer there is the opposite: married and unmarried men vote pretty similarly, so they were lumped into one group, whereas unmarried women vote differently from married women, in the aggregate.

            • Uncle Kvetch says:

              Point taken, joe.

            • Bill Murray says:

              not according to the CNN exit poll for the 2012 Presidential election.

              Unmarried Men voted for Obama 56-40; Married men voted for Romney 60-38 or a 19% difference

              Unmarried women 67-31 for Obama; married women 53-46 for Romney or a 21.5% difference.

              Thus, there is little difference between unmarried vs. married by gender, except that women in general voted more for Obama by about 10%

    • Vance Maverick says:

      But the argument from “Asians around the world are entrepreneurial” to anything about Asian-Americans is pretty straight-up racist.

    • I just love that the footnotes defining terms in his little charts go into more detail breaking down professions into conservative and liberal camps (“managers, doctors, engineers, dentists” etc. vs “writers, lawyers, journalists” etc.) than in defining “Asian” (in its entirety: “Includes South Asian and Filipino”)

  6. mark f says:

    “Majoritities Should Be Able to Govern” – Scott “Buckwheatley” Lemieux. As always, liberals are the Real Racists.

  7. herr doktor bimler says:

    “it’s a dirty, dirty trick to point out the policies on reproductive and LBGT rights that Republicans favor”

    Especially dirty because it was the Democrats who forced the Republicans to reveal those polices:

    One of the brilliant themes of the 2012 Obama campaign was forcing Republicans, on principle, to systematically oppose most of the things that the administration wanted them to oppose

    If it weren’t for those Jedi mind tricks, Romney could have gone on posing as a moderate centrist, as he did during the primaries.

    • STH says:

      If the Dems actually used the Republicans’ policy of “we’re automatically opposed to everything you favor” against them, then more power to ‘em. And if the Republicans allowed themselves to get trapped that way, it’s only what they deserve.

  8. somethingblue says:

    Republicans are seen by Asians—as they are by Latinos, blacks, and some large proportion of whites—as the party of Bible-thumping, anti-gay, anti-abortion creationists.

    So unfair. The Republican party also embraces crude racists, genteel racists, oil company lobbyists, and shriveled, bile-filled millionaires.

    It’s a big tent.

  9. STH says:

    Republicans are seen by Asians—as they are by Latinos, blacks, and some large proportion of whites—as the party of Bible-thumping, anti-gay, anti-abortion creationists. Factually, that’s ludicrously inaccurate.

    Don’t they know we’re also the party of rich assholes?? Who wouldn’t want to vote for that?

  10. DrDick says:

    The idea of Murray trying to figure out why minorities hate the GOP induces hysterical laughter.

    • LosGatosCA says:

      Indeed it does.

      Can’t they understand the inherent superiority of the old white man’s party? They seem smart enough and I’ve explained it all so clearly to them.

      • arguingwithsignposts says:

        I’ve explained it all so clearly to them.

        But did you talk slowly and in a LOUDER VOICE?

        • LosGatosCA says:

          Hadn’t thought of that.

          If we hear Rick Santorum SCREAMING at Asian-American events in 2016, we’ll know that our conservatives is learning.

          Apparently Little Ricky gets it already:

          ‘Santorum has sought to amplify his brand in the conservative wing of the Republican Party while also serving as a surrogate for the 2012 Republican nominee.’

          Getting LOUDER could just be the ticket for Republicans with their minority outreach. If they could just dial it up to 11.

    • greylocks says:

      The key word here being “Murray”.

    • witless chum says:

      Murray trying to figure this out is like Sinclair’s man whose salary understands on him not understanding something trying to teach a mule to play chess against Bobby Fisher’s ashes on the surface of Mercury on the eight day of the week backwards.

  11. McAllen says:

    You’d think it would be clear to Murray that the reason Asians vote for Democrats is that they all obviously love math and, as Nate Silver proves, math has a liberal bias.

  12. Rob says:

    Hey you know, one reason Asians might see the GOP as racist is that a well known racist like Charles Murray tends to speak for them.

  13. Jay B. says:

    Every single bit of Murray’s piece is based on erroneous stereotypes, save for the one he bemoans. The conservatives really have brined in their stupidity for way too long. This is what happens when you base your worldview on the Laffer Curve and the inerrant word of the Bible.

    • RhZ says:

      I wonder who first published this guy and gave him a national audience…hmm what genius could that have been?

      • witless chum says:

        Well, that’s probably the only the bit of nasty stupidity he’s propagated during his career and remains unrepentant about though, right?

      • gmack says:

        I assume you’re making a Sullivan reference. However, Murray made his name and initial reputation long before the Bell Curve stuff. He came to prominence with his terrible book on welfare, Losing Ground, which came out in 1984, iirc. So while Sully deserves scorn for his involvement in giving prominence to the Bell Curve, he isn’t responsible for Murray’s national audience.

  14. Pithlord says:

    Murray basically argues that Asian Americans are put off by by “social conservativism”, i.e. close identification with traditionalist Christianity. Asian Americans are a relatively secular demographic. He says Asian Americans have in other respects a demographic profile that is similar to that of Republicans, that they rarely had a commitment to leftist politics in their home countries (unlike many of the waves of Jewish immigration).

    It is true he doesn’t talk much about anti-Asian racism, which has historically been virulent especially on the West Coast (in Canada too, possibly even more so). However, that is extremely unlikely to be an explanation of why Obama crushed Romney among Asian Americans. According to Wikipedia, in 1992, George H.W. Bush got 55% of the Asian American vote compared to 31% for Bill Clinton. It is unlikely that racism against Asians has increased since 1992, let alone that this would explain a change of the magnitude we are talking about.

    Bouelle makes a good point that when Murray says it is not “factual” that Republicans are the party of “Bible-thumping, anti-gay, anti-abortion creationists”, he is really engaged in wishful thinking. But Murray is basically right, and he might in part know what he’s talking about since his kids are half Asian.

    • Malaclypse says:

      It is unlikely that racism against Asians has increased since 1992, let alone that this would explain a change of the magnitude we are talking about.

      It is, however, quite possible that Asians make the reasonable conclusion that their interests will not be furthered by voting for open white supremacists, even if the white supremacists either 1) hate them least, or 2) have Asian friends.

    • It is true he doesn’t talk much about anti-Asian racism, which has historically been virulent especially on the West Coast (in Canada too, possibly even more so). However, that is extremely unlikely to be an explanation of why Obama crushed Romney among Asian Americans. According to Wikipedia, in 1992, George H.W. Bush got 55% of the Asian American vote compared to 31% for Bill Clinton. It is unlikely that racism against Asians has increased since 1992, let alone that this would explain a change of the magnitude we are talking about.

      The repulsive effect of Republican racism on members of minority groups does not only come from explicit racism targeting their particular group. It’s really not that difficult to recognize a hater, even when he’s targeting his redneck hate at someone else. If some Oklahoma Republican is immigrant-bashing with Mexicans in mind, people whose grandparents immigrated from China a few decades ago hear it, too.

    • Pithlord says:

      Maybe, but George H.W. Bush had Lee Atwater as a major adviser and made Willie Horton famous. Checking the figures on the 1988 election, Asian Americans voted 55-44 for the GOP.

      Razib Khan makes the argument for the religious hypothesis here: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/11/religion-determines-politics-for-asian-americans/

      • witless chum says:

        Two things:
        1. I think the difference is that in 1988, there were two parties that appeared to be selling themselves as the party for conservative white people. The Dems have been quicker and more successful in changing both their image and their reality.

        2. I’d bet that the group “Asian-Americans” has changed a lot in makeup since 1988. Indians/Pakistanis/Arabs/Persians/Chinese/Japanese/Filipino is even less of a monolith than “Hispanics.”

      • Matt McIrvin says:

        The thing is, it’s not just Asian-Americans. Republicans used to do better with just about every ethnic minority who wasn’t considered black or white.

        I think it used to be possible to drive a wedge between black Americans and other minorities, but in the post-2001 years particularly, the Republicans became identified with anti-immigrant and anti-brown demagoguery to a much greater degree than they had been previously. That’s the difference between the situation in 1988 and today.

    • Hogan says:

      they rarely had a commitment to leftist politics in their home countries

      Well, yeah, but this is the Democratic party we’re talking about.

    • DocAmazing says:

      Vincent Chin’s murder was a long time ago, but memories persist.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Chin

      • Barry Freed says:

        I remember that horrible case but I didn’t remember the judge saying this: “These weren’t the kind of men you send to jail… You don’t make the punishment fit the crime; you make the punishment fit the criminal.” Holy shit. And the judge was in a Japanese POW camp.

      • Pithlord says:

        How can memories of a murder in 1982 be stronger in 2012 than they were in 1988?

    • Jay B. says:

      But Murray is basically right, and he might in part know what he’s talking about since his kids are half Asian.

      Seeing as how it’s the most populated and largest continent in the world and stretches from Israel to Japan and includes not just most of the Middle East, but also the Indian Subcontinent, SE Asia, China and Japan, it’s quite clear that his half-Asian kids can’t have less meaning to understanding the “Asian” problem for the GOP.

      • Pithlord says:

        But the Asian vote is more homogenous now than it used to be.

        • Walt says:

          It’s because the parties have completely sorted their positions. The Democrats are now the party of racial inclusion, and the Republicans are the party of only white Christians are the real Americans.

          Republicans are also confused because they don’t appreciate how right-wing Democratic economic positions have become. Upper middle class Asian-Americans or Jewish Americans recognize how far the Democrats are from actual socialism. Today’s Republicans believe their own rhetoric, so they don’t understand that.

  15. Jim Lynch says:

    Everyone knows Irish are drunks, Mexicans are lazy, blacks are stupid, Italians are mafia, and Asians are wily (wily, as in who knows what they’re thinking).

    Don’t get me started on the Canadians…

    • Linnaeus says:

      You forgot the Polacks!

      • Vance Maverick says:

        +1!

        For examples of how stereotypes, search “paul gallico jews basketball”. It’s sufficiently notorious now that Google helpfully completes the search query for me — but I can remember when he was firmly enough in the mainstream that my parents were going to see his plays.

        • Vance Maverick says:

          I mean “for examples of how stereotypes age“. My kingdom for an edit or preview function!

        • rea says:

          I can remember when he was firmly enough in the mainstream

          He’s still mostly mainstream, despite his anti-semitic remarks about basketball. Pride of the Yankees and Poseidon Adventure are still pretty well-known . . .

    • efgoldman says:

      …and Asians are wily…

      I thought Asians were inscrutable, and we Jews were wily. Have I been misinformed all my life?

      Seriously, I think the cliche that Asians (and other immigrant groups, in their time) strongly favor education, is quite true. Leading to the obvious: what educated populace would vote for the most anti-factual, anti-education party of the last 150 years?

  16. Anonymous says:

    Remember, there was this Citizens Against Government Waste “yellow peril” delightful ad during this past election cycle. Some elements of the right clearly have no reservations about showcasing their racism towards Asians.

  17. JL says:

    This hilariously reminds my half-Jewish light-skinned-but-multiracial self of the ever-popular “But whyyyyy don’t the Jews vote Republican?” genre of articles, except with less invoking of Israel.

    • “But whyyyyy don’t the Jews vote Republican?”

      I hear that this is going to be the year.

      I mean it; I frequently hear that, and have been hearing it for a quite some time now.

      • LosGatosCA says:

        It was going to happen this year for sure. But apparently Tommy Thompson got some ethno-cultural political consulting from Charles Murray or someone of his ilk and went too far in wooing the Jewish vote.

        “I’m in the private sector and for the first time in my life I’m earning money. You know that’s sort of part of the Jewish tradition and I do not find anything wrong with that.”

        I think Nixon was the first Republican to really court the Jews aggressively:

        “Beset by the leak of a top-secret history of the Vietnam War and rising unemployment statistics that were hurting his standing in the polls in summer of 1971, President Richard M. Nixon lashed out repeatedly at “the Jews” he saw at the root of his problems.
        “The Jews are all over the government,” Nixon complained to his chief of staff, H.R. “Bob” Haldeman, in an Oval Office meeting recorded on one of a set of White House tapes released yesterday at the National Archives. Nixon said the Jews needed to be brought under control by putting someone “in charge who is not Jewish” in key agencies.

        Washington “is full of Jews,” the president asserted. “Most Jews are disloyal.” He made exceptions for some of his top aides, such as national security adviser Henry Kissinger, his White House counsel, Leonard Garment, and one of his speechwriters, William Safire, and then added:

        “But, Bob, generally speaking, you can’t trust the bastards. They turn on you. Am I wrong or right?”

        Minority outreach is a proud Republican tradition since 1964.

      • Jeremy says:

        It’s be hard to top Jennifer Rubin’s Commentary piece “Why Jews Hate Palin.” It’s because the Jews are snobs, you see:

        And there is the matter of social class. As she recounts in Going Rogue, Palin and her husband had labored at jobs most professional and upper-middle-class Jews would never dream of holding—waitressing, picking “strawberries in the mud and mosquitoes?.?.?.?for five cents flat,” sweeping parking lots, and many “messy, obscure seafood jobs, including long shifts on a stinky shore-based crab-processing vessel.” Her populist appeal and identification with working-class voters are rooted in a life experience that is removed by one or two generations from the lives of most American Jews. Her life is what they were expected to rise above.

        As Continetti argues, Palin should have represented a success story about upward mobility through hard work, but instead she was on the receiving end of class animosity from elite media and opinion makers who had never before really been asked to accept the notion that someone outside their socio-economic circles could be qualified for the nation’s highest office. Palin is unique among recent presidential candidates in that regard. Democrats John Edwards and Dick Gephardt made a fetish of their families’ modest means, but by the time they achieved prominence, they had firmly ensconced themselves in the upper middle class, as is true of virtually all national politicians these days. Palin was married to a blue-collar worker who labored alternately on a fishing boat and an oil pipeline.

        Palin also fails to live up to a whole host of other stereotypes of Jews (they’re sympathetic to those “media elites” that have it in for Palin) that one might think Commentary wouldn’t stoop to (if one didn’t realize that their editorial policy is GOP über alles).

        • witless chum says:

          I’ve got a lot time for the point that the fact that Sarah Palin is a female moron from the back end of nowhere, Alaska has something to do with her getting less benefit of the doubt than someone like George W. Bush from the elite media. Some of them treated Bill Clinton like he was Jed Clampett, after all, and anyone without massive class blinders can see he’s a pretty smart guy. We were snarking on Dear Old Bell Curve and Fifth Column Andy Sullivan upthread. Remember his reaction to Palin?

          But the answer to that is give the Bushes more scrutiny, not the Palins less. And it’s also not to blame the Jews, Commentary.

  18. mpowell says:

    It’s not just the racism. The Republican party is full of corrupt, incompetent blowhards. Why would Asians vote for them? It’s a mystery to me why anyone who isn’t a racist or extremely wealthy does.

  19. Rarely Posts says:

    It’s even worse than this. Murray’s argument is racist, and it reveals that he’s completely delusional about the Republican party’s social views, but also . . . .

    The Republicans are horrible for economic growth, for opportunity for people to get ahead, and for liberty under any normal definition of the word. Rational people can compare the economy’s performance under Clinton and Obama to Bush I and Bush II. They also can see the growth of the debt under Bush II, and they can see where deregulation got us in 2008. The Republican party is horrible for economic growth.

    The Republican party needs the racism and social conservatism to cover up its economic policies. It should abandon racism and social conservatism, but inconveniently, that will only make it more necessary to abandon their stupid economic platform.

    • Kyle says:

      The Republicans are horrible for economic growth, for opportunity for people to get ahead, and for liberty under any normal definition of the word.

      In the realm of business, Repukes are the party of cronyism, of privileged insiders carving up the government contracts and rigging legislation for their own benefit.
      Look at Bush, Cheney and their sleazy associates.
      Their propaganda aims to convince the dull-witted non-wealthy Repuke-voters that they are in the club. Rmoney was such an obvious elitist sneering snob that it didn’t work as well this time around; some of the masses are catching on that they aren’t pets, they’re livestock.

    • commie atheist says:

      This. “[S]omething has happened to define conservatism in the minds of Asians as deeply unattractive, despite all the reasons that should naturally lead them to vote for a party that is identified with liberty, opportunity to get ahead, and economic growth.” Identified with – maybe; actually being responsible for any of those things – not since supply-side and trickle-down became gospel, and evangelicals made opposition to abortion and gays the centerpiece of Republican governance.

  20. OT: The final results of the popular vote count are going to round to 50.9% Obama, with a margin of victory of 23.2% in Massachusetts.

    Ron E. predicted Obama 50.9% Mass. margin 23%.

    That’s pretty good.

  21. pedro's too ethical to get votes says:

    It is odd. After all, Asians are way to the right on the Bell Curve.

    • LosGatosCA says:

      My research indicates that the Bell Curve can actually be recast into a colorized stacked bar chart just as accurately.

      The top bar is aryan white, the next bar down is off white, European Jews and non-brown Latinos fit there. Then light yellow (like the Japanese) getting darker to yellow-brown (like Filipinos). Then come the light browns leading to darker browns,

      My entirely scientifically research based ethno-cultural spectrometer is able to correlate skin color to economic viability and moral worth. It’s all in the paper. Read the footnotes.

  22. Don K says:

    A few days after the election, my partner and I saw a doctor who is Sikh. At one point we were talking about the election, and she said, “It’s very simple. Republicans just don’t like brown-skinned people.”

    That about sums it up.

    • Jeremy says:

      I’m inclined to agree with the doctor, but, unfortunately, I don’t have my copy of The Bell Curve handy. Does anyone know where Sikhs fall, intelligence-wise?

      • Belle Waring says:

        It’s like LosGatos says up there. Is the doc’s skin very brown? Then she’s at the bad end of the Bell Curve. Does she look like she just starred in a heavily-photoshopped ad campaign for skin whitening cream? Good end. It’s just that simple. I guess everyone decided to pretend that classical Indian mathematicians were Aryans, so as not to hurt Murray’s feelings, or has no one told him about that, or what, one wonders.

Leave a Reply




If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a Gravatar.

  • Switch to our mobile site