Palin destroys all competitors on Facebook

Thinking about potential Republican candidates for 2012, I put together a list of the number of Facebookers who have indicated that they like a particular politician's profile.


Number of Facebook fans

Sarah Palin 2,044,149
Mitt Romney 488,657
Mike Huckabee 393,445
Ron Paul 241,954
Bobby Jindal 109,096
John Thune 73,859
Newt Gingrich 73,577
Tim Pawlenty 54,482
Jim DeMint 49,116
Chris Christie 4,829
Eric Cantor 466
Tom Tancredo 402
Jeb Bush 336


I suppose the numbers give us a sense of the grassroots enthusiasm for politicians, probably among a younger than average demographic.  I doubt it means much, but it makes me nervous anyway: Sarah has no real competition here.  This is the type of thing that might convince Palin to run.  She commented on her profile that two million is more than the audience of some cable news shows. 

Poor Newt just seems to leave people flat. I must say I am pleased that my niece has more Facebook friends than Jeb Bush has fans.

Mexican Americans are least politically active

GSS respondents were asked if they have ever attended a political meeting or rally. Here are those who answered yes by ethnicity (sample size = 1,146):


Percent ever attending political meeting or rally


Jewish 52.7
Asian Indian 45.5
English/Welsh 44.6
German 37.9
Irish Protestant 36.6
Irish Catholic 34.4


All Americans 33.6


Scottish 32.1
Amerindian 27.9
Black 25.4
Muslim 25.0
Italian 15.0
Mexican 14.9

Jews and Asian Indians--two smart and economically successful groups--are the most politically active, while Italian and Mexican Americans are at the bottom. Historically, these two groups have been apathetic about politics. Notice how American Muslims are low on the list. Currently, they don't seem to be very political.

Bet the other way

Vicente Fox was recently asked in an interview by the New York Times, "What do you think Mexicans have contributed to American culture?  His answer:

While we can be confident that Fox wants to put the best spin he can on Mexican contributions to the country, we can assume that he knows what he is talking about on this subject. 

"Oh, starting with Mexican food! The jalapeños and the tacos and the rest. I think they have contributed family values. And then we have our culture. When you were killing Indian Apaches there, we had built Mayan cities, the pyramids, Mexico City."

A well-informed Mexican lets us know that Mexican Americans have given us good food and family values. Perhaps Mexico has benefited from its Aztec past, but I don't see how that is connected to improving America. And the "family values" cliche is just a neocon talking point. American families are not not stronger because of some Mexican influence.

So, based on Fox himself, Mexicans, compared to other American groups, have not contributed much to the country. Don't get me wrong--every American who lives a decent life is contributing to the well-being of the country, but "cultural contribution" is a different question.

General Social Survey respondents were asked, "Since the beginning of our country, people of many different races, nationalities, and religions have come here and settled. As I name some of these groups please tell me if the group has made: 1) one of the most important positive contributions to this country, 2) an important contribution, 3) some contribution, or 4) little positive contribution to this community." 

Respondents were asked about many groups, and Mexican Americans were on the list.  I identified factors predicting that a person thinks Mexicans have done a lot by estimating a model with ordinary least squares regression. If a factor, for example sex, turned out to be unrelated to one's attitude, I removed it from the model. Here's the final list:

Thinking Mexicans have contributed a lot (OLS regression coefficients--standardized, N = 1,033)

Age -.15
Education .14
Job prestige .10
Church attendance -.05
Political conservatism -.08

The profile of someone who gives Mexicans a lot of credit looks like this: young, educated, prestigious job, not religious, and liberal.  Objectively, this immigrant group has not contributed a lot compared to others--even Fox doesn't make a contrary case--but SWPLs, supposedly our best and brightest, are most likely to view Mexicans as playing a key role. If a SWPL feels strongly about something, the smart move is to bet the other way.

Immigrants and being a real American

General Social Survey respondents, both Americans and immigrants in America, were asked: "Some people say that the following things are important for being truly American. Others say they are not important. How important do you think it is to have American ancestry?"  I've listed the percent who answered "very important" by ethnic group (sample size = 1,184):

Percent

Amerindian 56.0
Black 47.4
Irish 40.7
Italian 34.7
English/Welsh 27.5
German 27.1
Mexican 23.3
Jewish 9.4
Chinese 0.0

I'm surprised how common it is to believe that you need to have American ancestors to be truly American (I shouldn't be surprised, given that just about every country in the world focuses on ancestry). "Ancestors" sound pretty old, but I take it that it means at least that your parents had to be born here. So it suggests that people who agree don't think that immigrants can be real Americans. I didn't put the numbers in the above table, but 54 percent of all respondents and 52 percent of whites feel it is very or fairly important to have American ancestors to be truly American.

In the table, you can see that old American groups with a history of mistreatment are most likely to think that immigrants cannot be real Americans.  Those of English or German ancestry, on the other hand, are more likely believe that Americanness is not an ancestral thing. Groups with many recent immigrants and (pro-immigration) Jews are least likely to place importance on ancestry.

The Boy Scout Jamboree

The Boy Scouts are celebrating their 100th anniversary at Fort A.P. Hill, Virginia, the place where they've held their 10-day Jamboree every four years since 1981.  I was there in 1981. The trip cost me $1300.  My parents couldn't afford that, so I worked on a dairy farm after school for $1.50 an hour and moved irrigation pipe (with my illegal Mexican brothers) all summer until I saved enough money to go. (By the way, this American did do a job Americans won't do, and I worked just as hard as the illegals did, and I was a boy).

One of the highlights of my two week tour through Toronto, New York (New Yorkers mocked us in our uniforms--gotta love those folks), Philadelphia, and Virginia was when President Reagan arrived in a huge helicopter at a Jamboree gathering and spoke to all of us. I can't remember a word he said, but it was inspiring for a kid from the sticks. I'd love it if my boys could have the same kind of experience, but presidents these days seem to think appearing on The View is more important.

Wisdom from our Fathers

"As our enemies have found we can reason like men, so now let us show them we can fight like men also."

Thomas Jefferson

Jews vs. those with no religion

My hypothesis is that Jewish Americans don't really differ from Americans with no religion on their political attitudes, except for on a small number of topics where Jewish experience may be unique. The thought is that Jewish folks, as a group, are about as secular as people with no religion, and secular people tend to be liberal. The table above compares the two groups. All the numbers are percentages except for liking Israel which is a mean score (with answers ranging from 0 to 9).  

There are quite a few significant differences (as indicated by the asterisks) but generally the differences are small, especially on the spending questions.  Both groups are liberals who want more spending for most liberal causes. Jews are more concerned with big city problems, probably because they are more urban.

Where the groups diverge the most is on a few unique issues. Jews are more pro-Israel, pro-immigrant, and pro-abortion. All three seem to be connected to Jewish culture, even abortion which has been viewed in the Jewish tradition more liberally than among Christians.  

Disgust and homosexuality

Here's a new article from Personality and Individual Differences entitled, "Disgust: A predictor of social conservatism and prejudicial attitudes toward homosexuals" :

Disgust is a universal human emotion that evolved to protect individuals from ingesting harmful substances such as toxins and pathogens. Recent research suggests that disgust is a component of a “behavioral immune system” that encourages individuals to avoid people and situations that could potentially result in bodily contamination. The purpose of the current research was to explore the role of social conservatism in the link between disgust and prejudicial attitudes toward homosexuals. The results of a correlational study (Study 1) indicated that disgust sensitivity was positively correlated with socially conservative values. However, the relation was specific to conservative values regarding intergroup relations and potential contamination. In Study 2, disgust was experimentally manipulated. Inducing disgust resulted in increased prejudicial attitudes toward contact with homosexuals for conservative individuals and reduced prejudice for liberals. The results of these studies support the claim that disgust is part of a “behavioral immune system” that promotes socially conservative value systems and can lead to increased negative attitudes toward outgroups.

From Mao to Martin?

I like the sound of this:

Some recent surveys have calculated there could be as many as 100 million Chinese Protestants. That would mean that China has more Christians than Communist Party members, which now number 75 million.

NAMs much more optimistic about the future

Pew reported an interesting finding. A sample of Americans were asked: "When your children are the age you are now, will their standard of living be much/somewhat better, about the same, or much/somewhat worse than yours is now?" 

The racial differences are striking. While 69 percent of blacks and 64 percent of Hispanics answered much or somewhat better, only 38 percent of whites answered this way. Why are minorities so much more optimistic? 

I think there are several possibilities. Perhaps the simplest explanation is that minorities feel better about the current administration which, in turn, makes them more positive about the future. 

Second, non-Asian minorities are poorer than whites, so perhaps kids moving up from poverty seems more feasible than middle-income white kids moving up to the upper-income bracket. 

Third, minorities sense, especially in the middle of a liberal administration, that government is always growing, and government is good for them and their kids. Whites, on the other hand, may see the same thing but are more likely to think that a growing government will impoverish their children.  

Cherry-picking Nazi ideology for political reasons

There are a number of problems with the argument that we shouldn't study the biological sources of behavior because such an approach led to Nazi atrocities against other races, but one criticism I haven't seen is that people arguing such a position are cherry-picking convenient Nazi beliefs. 

The core Nazi belief was public health--a healthy social organism in its proper relationship with nature. The social body will be healthier if people live healthier lifestyles; if they keep their bodies in shape through exercise and getting fresh air; if they eat wholesome, natural foods that are free of additives, preservatives, and other man-made toxins; if they avoid tobacco, alcohol, and meat; if air and water pollution are eliminated; if there are advances in private and public hygiene, advances in medical science, and access to current treatments. 

Concern for collective health was absolutely at the center. As one specific part of that, Nazis believed that the social body had to be treated for some illnesses by the elimination of diseased elements. They viewed the mentally handicapped, the mentally ill, and the terminally infirmed like cancerous cells. Likewise, Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, Communists, and Slavs were seen as pathogens attacking the German body. The social organism is made healthy by killing off the germs. 

As people who were focused intensely on nature, Nazis believed in respecting the ecologies they lived in. (Ernst Haeckel, a scientist whose ideas inspired Nazism, coined the term ecology). Nazis were conservationists. They advocated the preservation of fauna and flora. They fostered a love of nature. They passed laws against cruelty toward animals. Vegetarianism was encouraged. Researchers were forbidden from doing certain kinds of animal testing. The penality for killing an eagle was death. The social body could not be healthy in a sick environment. The overall theme was health through harmony with nature.

If Nazi ideology led inexorably to the gas chambers, the belief in goverment advancement of public health is much closer to the center of that ideology than is the belief that biology influences human behavior. The truth is that Lefties link human biological research to Nazism because such research works against their claim that society can be fixed by social and economic reforms. They cherry-pick the Nazi beliefs that advance their politics. An honest Lefty like Jonathan Spiro (from whose book Defender of the Master Race much of the above facts are taken) admits that collective health and harmony with nature was their obsession. I wouldn't claim that prioritizing public health logically leads to mass executions, but arguing like liberals do--that Nazi-like thinking leads to Nazi-like behavior--leads to that conclusion. (I will concede that some conservatives make these kinds of arguments too. Their reasoning stinks just as much).    

The totalitarian wish

In response to my posting a nostalgic song by Merle Haggard, an anonymous reader tells me to get out of education. She (I'm going to follow stereotypes and assume she is a she) didn't say, "You need to be fair, Ron. Show all sides of an issue to your students. Keep your own gripes out of it." Her call was for me to get out. Such a demand reveals the totalitarian wish--typical of the liberal attitude toward education (It's a sad joke that these people are called "liberals"). Almost total domination of schools by the Left is not enough for this women. She would have fit right in with the Nazi education purges. It's not enough to have 95 percent of educators Nazis. We won't rest until every last Communist and Jew is run out.

Well, ma'am, rest easy. Every one of the administrors above me would love to show the door to any subordinate who expresses opinions like I do on this blog.  Like any good resident at the Gulag, I do as I'm told. My liberal colleagues can indoctrinate kids with almost anything they care to. For (a mild) example, how whites are evil for displacing Indians, like you said. There are liberals who try to be neutral in the classroom, but many use their authority to brainwash unsuspecting youths. I've taught for 15 years and have met a few conservative educators. None--I repeat none--takes anything but a neutral approach to teaching. Some do it out of principle; others to avoid termination. So relax--your fellow liberals have got the concentration camp under control.          

Obama and the NAACP assume that black officials are anti-white

One observation about the Shirley Sherrod flap. As soon as the Obama administration and the NAACP got wind of a tape showing reverse discrimination by a black person, they assumed it was true. Sherrod was immediately forced to resign, and the NAACP issued a statement condemning her comments made at one of their meetings.

So why did they jump the gun when doing so ended up hurting them?  Because they assumed that it was likely that a black woman had discriminated against a white man. Why would they assume that? Because they know how common it is among blacks to want to help their own over whites. They acted on the assumption that Sherrod was anti-white because they saw it as the smart bet with a black person in power. Whites would probably not make such an assumption, but whites do not know black leaders like Obama and the NAACP do.

They got it comin'

I'm fed up. For awhile there I thought that liberals had a point that it was unfair of people like Glenn Beck or even Newt Gingrich to call Obama and his buddies socialists, revolutionaries, etc. Whatever Obama's personal views, he has operated like a liberal. For someone like me who has spent his whole career surrounded by Lefties, Obama has seemed pretty conventional.  

But after being reminded by recent events how liberals find ANY opportunity to brand conservatives as people who secretly want to string up blacks, liberals deserve ANYTHING and EVERYTHING they get. Using a word like racist puts Tea Partiers and Himmler into the same circle. Calling someone a racist is just as harsh as calling him a child molester or a street thug. In fact, being called a thug is not as bad because it is associated with a certain glamor. How many glamorous racists do you know?  Heck, even pedophilia has glamor--look at Hollywood's treatment of Roman Polanski.    

Liberals may be morons about many things, but they understand politics. It's not a gentleman's debate; it's a gotdamn street fight. If I can get votes by accusing you of sleeping with your mother, I'll do it--so says the liberal. If I can hear imaginary voices calling me the n-word as I head to the Capitol building, I'll accuse you of it. Just listen to Shirley Sherrod. According to this angelic media martyr, racism is worse now than in the past. That means that, despite appearances, more of us white folks are now itching to lynch somebody than in 1950.   

I'm certainly not going to lose any sleep if liberals are sometimes called communists or fascists or totalitarians or potheads or degenerates or mentally ill or subversives or traitors or cowards or civilization destroyers. In fact, I'll join in if the accusation seems to have traction because a punch in the nose deserves a punch in the eye.  

Another sign of American decline

In another sign of American decline, the number of Boy Scouts dropped by 600,000 over the past decade. But at least the dwindling numbers are not as bad as Europe: they now allow girls. Some of my fondest (wholesome) childhood memories are of scouting, but if I had shared a tent with a girl, my memories would be a bit different. And what's with female Scout leaders now? Is there no escape from women for a boy?  A life of Perpetual Mom. I'm sure the knitting merit badge is much more popular now than was firearms when I was a boy.   

Eugenic Eunuchs

The Nordicists, under the leadership of Madison Grant, could be criticized for many things, but I join with author Jonathan Spiro in mocking their sterility. In his book Defending the Master Race, Spiro must have mentioned 30 eugenicist leaders who died without fathering a single child. Nowadays (and perhaps even then) there would be nothing but whispers that these guys were closeted homosexuals. 

Yeah, yeah Grant devoted his entire life to doing what he thought was best for the country, but how about listening to your own lectures?  

I agree completely that society benefits when the most successful have lots of kids, and the less successful have few (although coercing people is fascistic). So in that spirit, I looked at General Social Survey data and calculated percentiles for the number of offspring had by smart people (WORDSUM of at least 8) who were ages 40-59 during the surveys conducted from 2000 to 2008. I also took the liberty to label guys by their productivity:

UPDATE: The eugenicists were like Shakers.  If you're starting something like a new religion, you have to either convert lots of people or breed them if you're going to last. The Grantians seemed to think their prestige and corner on the Truth was enough to make an enduring movement. Meanwhile, the Boasians cranked out PhD after PhD, and took over anthropology departments all across the country as well as the American Anthropological Association by sheer numbers. Their cultural determinism was no closer to the truth than Grant's biological determinism, but truth had nothing to do with who won.  

I Wish Things Were Simple Again

Here's the nostalgic first verse of "I Wish Things Were Simple Again" by Country/Western legend Merle Haggard:

I wish things were simple like they used to be,
When cowboys rode horses, and were heroes to me.
My Mother was a lady, and my Dad was a man,
And I wish things were simple again.

Understanding Madison Grant

Reading Defending the Master Race by Jewish historian Jonathan Spiro--a biography of eugenicist Madison Grant--I'm struck by how odd reality is. The book documents how WASP elites like Grant succeeded in bringing immigration to a halt in the mid-1920s, and how a desire to stop Jewish immigration was at the center of their concerns.

WASP scientists from the most elite institutions were convinced that Jews were dumb, illiterate, culturally backward, unclean, genetically inferior, and unassimilable. Recent scholarship shows that these scientists were zero out of six. They were wrong about so many characteristics, but at the same time, many Jews did join with others to eventually turn the country into a PC basketcase. Jews did help change the country in ways that men like Grant wouldn't have wanted. (Of course, they also contributed positively in many unexpected ways.) So how do we explain that, on the one hand, the restrictionists were so wrong about Jews, but, on the other, there was something to their fears? 

My hunch is that people feel something in the gut, and then try to explain it to themselves in a rational way. Madison Grant saw all these guys from Poland dressed in weird clothes, speaking a foreign language, and he sensed in his mammalian brain that something wasn't quite right. Ordinary ethnocentrism and wariness of the stranger is enough to lead a person to biased thinking, but add to it all to a sense of WASP superiority and a respect for science, and you end up with a pseudoscience about the inferiority of the Jew. 

I mean, after all, I wouldn't expect a person like Grant to see lowly bearded aliens as people who were as capable as himself. He rationalized his gut feeling of wariness into a fantasy of the inferior, verminous Jew.

It might be argued that elite WASPs knew very well that Jews were a strong, not a weak, group, and knew that many of these folks would some day pass them by. It could be a case of conscious ethnic competition, but I don't see it. (References to the contrary would be appreciated.) These elites really seemed to believe their own propaganda.

I suppose there are a couple of lessons to be learned. First, it is really hard to do objective science. Spiro tells a tale of Old American bias, and I harp all the time on the current leftist bias by mainstream social science. Objectivity is much more the exception than the rule. Second, gut reactions probably tell you something, but the useful message is not so obvious, and it is likely to be self-serving. On the other hand, if you're the dominant group, and you don't want that position to slip, you might want to follow your gut.

Black leadership in action

I need to remember to not give black students the "full force of my help" and "send them to their people for assistance" instead.

But, oh yeah, blacks can't be racists because they don't hold any positions of power.

Do cohabitors have more fun?

I've heard people claim that cohabitation is superior to marriage because life with a girlfriend or boyfriend is more romantic and exciting than life with a spouse. If this is true, then I would expect cohabiting couples to have sex more frequently than married people. 

The MIDUS Study asked people about their relationship status--cohabiting, married, etc.--and also asked about frequency of sex. Answers ranged from "two or more times a week" (6) to never (1).  Age matters so I limited the sample to people in their 30s. The mean for 250 married people is 4.58; it's 4.30 for the 20 cohabitors. The difference is not statistically significant, but keep in mind that married people tend to have the disadvantage of more years together.