November 29, 2012

Why Asians vote Democratic (cont.)

From an email:
"What you write about assimilation is important, probably the most important single issue, just impossible to write about openly. Huntington explained this in Who Are We, which was an important influence for me. America has lost the cultural self-confidence to assimilate immigrants. Now because of pro-immigration propaganda they feel you owe them something. 
Hope is not all lost, over the long run there is some appeal to become American, you have an attractive culture. 
Social Issues combined with identity are hugely turning off high IQ secular Asians. If the GOP moderates there is a chance to attract them. 
The most dangerous trend is the aggressive anti-white, anti-American sentiment among successful immigrants as part of expressing one’s own identity. It is palpable among the graduate students I know, sickening."

From another email in this thread:
However, that doesn't explain why a generally well educated, economically successful group (actually several groups) would be more Democratic than Hispanics.

As best I can tell, the shift is cultural. At one time, American society was overtly assimilationist (and proud of it). Immigrants were encouraged (pressured, coerced, etc.) to join the mainstream. Rather than retaining their native cultures, values, and ideas they were told to adopt everything American. Indeed, the American definition of assimilation required the immigrant to give up all things "foreign" other than his religion and his last name (even that had to go in some cases).

This wasn't just an idea from 1900. As recently as 1967, Norman Podhoretz wrote about how Jews could only gain acceptance in elite American circle by giving up their ethnic identity, and becoming ersatz WASPs. ... 
Assimilation didn't make immigrants (or more relevantly their children), Republicans. However, it strongly encourage immigrants to identify with the mainstream of American society. That made them (first and second generation immigrants) open to the ideas and values of the Republicans.

Conversely, American society today is very overtly anti-assimilationist. The new ideology is "diversity" (as in "celebrate diversity") where each person is strongly encouraged to define him or herself in opposition to the mainstream. That makes voting for the left inevitable and inexorable.

And, of course, since most people are conformist, it very much helps that Defining Yourself in Opposition to the Mainstream is the mainstream, as demonstrated by, say, the TV commercials shown during NFL games.

122 comments:

Anonymous said...

Before we take this too far, let's realize that there were plenty of damn good reason's not to vote for Mitt Romney(though I did vote for Mitt Romney).

GOP elites need to realize that you're not going to rouse immigrants with warmongering. They don't believe in the same historical narratives as you... they don't believe in the same concept of nationhood that you do.

They GOP has lost it's "national security" edge... the smart people on the right would embrace that. If the new immigrants don't embrace the same narratives and concept of nationhood, why should you join up with them? Pull back... and tell every little white kid that he or she would be an idiot to join the politically correct military and go defend a nation that will soon come to hate you.

Anonymous said...

"Assimilation didn't make immigrants (or more relevantly their children), Republicans. However, it strongly encourage immigrants to identify with the mainstream of American society. That made them (first and second generation immigrants) open to the ideas and values of the Republicans."

I don't care if Asians assimilate. I don't want any immigrants anymore, period.

The GOP is just as PC as the left is.

The GOP is useless and will turn the country over to immigrants just like the Dems.

Rock Me said...

It seems to me that Asians are assimilating TOO WELL. Since American pop culture and elite culture are dominated by Jews, gays, and blacks, that is what goes by American culture/values/ideas today, and so Asians have been exceptionally well in assimilating to that stuff. SYPL is very much like SWPL.

Anonymous said...

@ Rock me "asians assimilating too well"

Exactly. For thousands of years success in Asian societies has depended on little else besides identifying the powerful and ingratiating yourself with them.

Anonymous said...

This may just be a limiting factor of the physical component of HBD. I suspect most Asians who choose to come here, if given the choice to be suddenly taken to be full-blooded Americans indistinguishable from the mainstream, in exchange for renouncing all native folkways, would take it. The benefits, psychological and otherwise, of fitting in, are compelling.

Anonymous said...

tell every little white kid that he or she would be an idiot to join the politically correct military and go defend a nation that will soon come to hate you.

Agreed, though its increasingly not a nation and the hate is already there.

Anonymous said...

There's another reason immigrants were historically able to assimilate: they were white. To assimilate is to come to think of a country's history as your own. My great grandparents were German, but the history I identify with is American history--the pilgrims, the revolution, the civil war, WWII, etc. I don't care a fig about German history. But in your race you wear your history on your sleeve, as it were and makes it impossible to come to think of American history as your history when your race is staring you in the face all the time.

Anonymous said...

uh, if assimilation has disappeared as a major cultural force I think it is because of tastes of elites. similar to the demand for spices from the east in the middle ages, the elites find mass american culture dull and depressing. having "diversity" around allows your college town to offer all the wonders of the world in a single place, any externalities are for the less fortunate.

Anonymous said...

In addition to racial identity issues, I'm always reminded of Mencius Moldbug's summary of Left-ism --> Put Scholars In Charge... of Everything. And if you're a scholar (as many Asian folk rightfully view themselves), that sounds like a pretty good deal.

Anonymous said...

Asians ARE assimilating. It's standard for Asians to adopt Western first names and sometimes last names. Asians dye their hair blond or brown frequently. Radical plastic surgeries to mimic Caucasian features are skyrocketing. The use of skin bleach is soaring. Asians are increasingly using the political system to elect their own and force candidates to consider policies they favor. Asians commonly get married in European-style weddings with European-syle attire. There are too many other examples for me to list, you get the idea. Asians on their own accord want to be more like white Europeans. They will fiercely deny it yet it's plain to see.

Asians have switched, according to exit polls, from supporting Republicans prior to 1995 to supporting Democrats. Part of it is demographics. Asians are no longer just East Asians, there are increasing South, Southeast and Central Asians in the US. The Republicans were the party that ended the Vietnam War and opened up Western relations with China. Then Bill Clinton pushed for China to have permanent status in the WTO among many other favorable things and the tide started to turn. With the increasing rise of China and it's spying, intellectual theft, exponentially increasing military spending more Republicans than Democrats acknowledged the growing threat of China. This inturn further pushed Asians away from Republicans. Asians also favor the Democrats because of entitlement programs.

Anonymous said...

Has it ever occurred to anyone that Asians vote Democrat because they are just stupid?

We worry so much about IQ, but there is more to human intelligence than IQ.

None of my Asian friends, even the top notch students, are as solidly successful on all counts (family, job, friends, etc) as the whites. None of them.

The only Asians who even have children are those who married white men.

I think they identify with the anti-white coalition for this reason...

They just don't have it all around together enough so they do have more in common with hispanics and blacks then with whites.





Steve Sailer said...

You must not know too many white people.

Anonymous said...

Botton line: White people suck!

anony-mouse said...

If you have a large enough group some in that group will vote Dem and some will vote GOP.

And since the high-breeder Socons in most groups will vote GOP the GOP will be okay.

So relax.

Anonymous said...

In terms of becoming anti-assimilationist. No question about that.

I think that the crux of the matter is the racial spoils system such as affirmative action and the myriad of government programs the government has set up either to insure diversity or to benefit and support or outreach to various immigrant groups.

Under a racial spoils system what incentive is there for anyone to assimilate to the majority when being in the minority, or a recognized as a minority, is hugh windfall in terms of college admssions, job hiring, small business loans, etc ...

Originally, affirmative action was set up to help Blacks but all sorts of people whose ancestors never suffered under slavery benefited such as Obama (his mother was upper class White and his father was from Africa) or attorney general Elder (whose parents are from Barbados). Now it has expanded to basically include everyone who is not White (except for Women).

How to dismatle the racial spoils system so as to encourage assimilation is a good quesiton.

Frankly, I don't think it can be done because too many poeple, including the bulk of the Demcoratic party, have too much invested...

I am not sure how you would characterize what has happened to the orginal program other than the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

On a related topic I noticed the MSM finnaly picked up on the genociding of White farmers in Sout Africa. Note, the title:

Farm murders highlight apartheid's toxic legacy Chicago Tribune‎ - 5 hours ago
Farm murders highlight apartheid's toxic legacy in ...- Yahoo! News
news.yahoo.com/farm-murders-highlight-apartheids-toxic-legacy-so...


My impression is that the term "toxic legacy" in the title somehow seeks to justify the genocide that is happening to Whites in South Africa..

Is there any wonder why guns and ammo were one the commonest "consumer" items snapped up this past Holiday shopping weekend by White shoppers in the U.S.?

At some point in the future it will end in tears...

Anonymous said...

"the TV commercials shown during NFL games"

Question. Why do so many white conservative guys watch football when it's black studs and white chicks?
Never mind the commercials during the Superbowl. Just look at the field. It's white cheerleaders shaking their butts for black athletes. Why are white male idiots howling and getting all worked up over such a game?

Anonymous said...

GOP elites need to realize that you're not going to rouse immigrants with warmongering.

The GOP warmongering fetish is surprisingly recent-it only dates from post-9/11 and the neocon takeover of US foreign` policy. Ronald Reagan was called a "warmonger"-mostly by those with an unseemly affection for the Soviet Bloc-for merely wanting to pursue the existing Cold War with more seriousness.Not so ironically, after the Reykjavík Summit and continuing therafter, Norman Podhoretz and most of the other early neocons began attacking Reagan for "lacking backbone" and generally going soft on Gorbachev.

Anonymous said...

It all boils down to how can we cater to foreigners so we can keep our own damned country. We have ceded to much power to people who are not invested or even interested in our success even as they demand we invest in theirs because they are planning to overrun and overwhelm us. Look people, there is no equality. Either you are on top or you are on the bottom. Usurpers always say they want equality. They don't. They want to be on top. Hierarchy is human nature.

Anonymous said...

Just my two cents as an American of Korean descent:

There are big differences among the various "Asian American" subgroups (people know this, right?). Religion is one factor: http://www.pewforum.org/uploadedImages/Topics/Demographics/overview3.png

My sense, based on personal experience and scattered polling data, is that Korean-Americans are generally conservative. I also think Taiwanese-Americans are pretty conservative as well.

I strongly believe that America would be a better country if all of us put less emphasis on our racial identity. And to the extent that the Republican Party is the major political party that stands for individualism and assimilation, then I hope more Americans of all backgrounds vote Republican.

That said, let me point out two aspects about Romney's campaign themes that may (and probably did) disappoint many Republicans and independents and recent immigrants.

First, little was said about plans for the plight of the working class of all ethnicities. Lower taxes are fine, but if Republicans are really the party of the free market, then they should clearly differentiate between being pro-free market and capitalism (good) vs. being indiscriminately pro-big business (no good) while thinking about ways to help fellow Americans who are not doctors, lawyers, consultants, bankers, corporate managers, etc.

Second, little reflection or even the awareness of the need for, at minimum, greater caution, about foreign wars. Most voters don't want to vote for a party that seems eager for foreign interventions.

I voted Republican. But did I think the national Republican ticket deserved to win?

Anonymous said...

As best I can tell, the shift is cultural. At one time, American society was overtly assimilationist (and proud of it). Immigrants were encouraged (pressured, coerced, etc.) to join the mainstream. Rather than retaining their native cultures, values, and ideas they were told to adopt everything American. Indeed, the American definition of assimilation required the immigrant to give up all things "foreign" other than his religion and his last name (even that had to go in some cases).

Thus, you just described multiculturalism. No, not multiculturalism as a buzzword like 'diversity' and 'vibrancy', but multiculturalism as an official government policy in regards to immigration as opposed to an assimilationist set of policies.

Multiculturalism was adopted as official policy, in several Western nations from the 1970s onward, for reasons that varied from country to country...

Government multicultural policies may include:

*recognition of multiple citizenship
*government support for newspapers, television, and radio in minority languages
*support for minority festivals, holidays, and celebrations
*acceptance of traditional and religious dress in schools, the military, and society in general
*support for music and arts from minority cultures
*rograms to encourage minority representation in politics, Science, Engineering, Technology, Mathematics, education, and the work force in general.
*enforcement of different codes of law on members of each ethnic group

Anonymous said...

There's another reason immigrants were historically able to assimilate: they were white. To assimilate is to come to think of a country's history as your own. My great grandparents were German, but the history I identify with is American history--the pilgrims, the revolution, the civil war, WWII, etc. I don't care a fig about German history. But in your race you wear your history on your sleeve, as it were and makes it impossible to come to think of American history as your history when your race is staring you in the face all the time.

I could have written that comment because it explains my situation. I have absolutely no English or British Isle ancestry. Yet, I identify with England as my mother country and the Founders as some sort of distant relatives. I cannot speak one word of my father's native language and would not lose a minute of sleep if his country of birth were to disappear tomorrow. I guess I can do this because once my family adopted the language, custom and culture of America, we became indistinguishable from the millions of others who preceded us.

If I were Chinese, Indian, Mestizo, African, or an Arab Muslim, I doubt I would feel the same. I did mention Arab Muslim because I believe many Christian Arabs, e.g. Amos Muzyad Yakhoob Kairouz (aka Danny Thomas), can make the same transition as I did due to their similar religious beliefs.

Nick Santuro said...

Something that isn't mentioned is that Asians (esp the Chinese, who are the 800 lb gorilla of Asia) are spoonfed an even more PC liberal view of the world than we have been. It feeds into their natural trends towards racial nationalism to believe that white men, who have been besting them for centuries, are evil stupid thieves, who used racism to get to the top.

Also, Asians in the US are associated (or believe they are) with the middle upper class intellectual crowd- who tend to trend overwhelming towards foolish liberal notions- or perhaps not so foolish for them, since getting ahead in academia requires bowing to the PC Gods and it is the Dems who keep funding the endless steam of cash going into education, grants, etc.


Silver said...

American white boys are suckers for this line of reasoning. My response would just be, "Hey, when China becomes 50% non-Chinese then we can talk."

Notice too that pressure for acceptance is only ever applied to whites. No one really cares whether other race are accepting of them. Do Chinese care whether Negroes accept them? Do Hispanics care whether Hindoos accept them? If at all, not nearly as much as everyone demands whites accept them.

Craig P said...

Republicans need to quit being Democrat lite, sack up and deal head on with the Democrat games- deport illegals, slash entitlements, and get rid of AA and disparate impact.

Silver said...

I did mention Arab Muslim because I believe many Christian Arabs, e.g. Amos Muzyad Yakhoob Kairouz (aka Danny Thomas), can make the same transition as I did due to their similar religious beliefs.

It's religious (cultural) identity that matters more than religious belief. That's why Jews can disbelieve their religion in its entirety without it making a dent in their Jewish identity. From a factual/rational viewpoint I don't believe a word of Christianity. It's total hogwash. But from the standpoint of religious tradition and cultural marker I remain very attached to it.

It's also race. Few would have confused Danny Thomas with a "real white" in those years, but then he wasn't that far off either. Just how far you can diverge before the distance becomes too great for the purposes of common racial identity is an interesting question but I agree with you that Danny Thomas was in that ballpark. The real trick to it might that you have to be willing to allow for (be fine with) a certain degree of racial rejection (cold shoulders, sideways glances, slurs etc) and that as long as the frequency or intensity of it isn't too great the assimilative "pull" factor will draw you in.

Non-racial assimilation flapdoodle might succeed in achieving "tolerance," but I highly doubt it can ever do more than that. At the end of the day you have tolerance, yes, but it's mere tolerance. If you ask me, people deserve a hell of a lot better than that.

ATBOTL said...

"The most dangerous trend is the aggressive anti-white, anti-American sentiment among successful immigrants as part of expressing one’s own identity. It is palpable among the graduate students I know, sickening."

I think most baby boomer aged white men are unaware of just how hostile to whites many recent Asian immigrants are, especially Indians and Chinese.

As mentioned, the GOP's war mongering is a deal breaker for many younger, better educated people. The GOP establishment has failed to face up to how much the Iraq war damaged their brand.

Is there any evidence that the GOP has lost support from Asians who were voting in 1992? It seems likely that the decline is Asian Republican voters is mostly due to recent immigrants rather than assimilated Asian Americans changing their mind.

Anonymous said...

Incidentally, Romney's chief policy advisor during the campaign was a guy named Lanhee Chen:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanhee_Chen

Anonymous said...

"For while South Africa's overall annual murder rate has more than halved since the end of apartheid to around 32 people per 100,000, figures for commercial farmers show a near 50 percent rise to an average rate of some 290 per 100,000 a year in the five years to 2011."

Yikes! That makes it four or five times higher than the highest murder rate of any country in the world.

Anonymous said...

Yet, I identify with England as my mother country and the Founders as some sort of distant relatives.

Identifying with the Founders is normal, but identifying with England as a "mother country" is kind of strange, even for those with British ancestry.

Anonymous said...

And by "strange" I don't mean that there is anything wrong with identifying with England as a mother country, but that it doesn't seem like a common attitude. The attitude is more like England as a junior partner or little bro or sidekick.

Anonymous said...

OT, but did you see this about the rise of Mexico in The Economist:

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21567081-america-needs-look-again-its-increasingly-important-neighbour-rise-mexico

"In terms of GDP it ranks just ahead of South Korea. In 2011 the Mexican economy grew faster than Brazil’s—and will do so again in 2012."

"The first place where Americans will notice these changes is in their shopping malls. China (with more than 60 mentions in the presidential debates) is by far the biggest source of America’s imports. But wages in Chinese factories have quintupled in the past ten years and the oil price has trebled, inducing manufacturers focused on the American market to set up closer to home. Mexico is already the world’s biggest exporter of flat-screen televisions, BlackBerrys and fridge-freezers, and is climbing up the rankings in cars, aerospace and more. On present trends, by 2018 America will import more from Mexico than from any other country. “Made in China” is giving way to “Hecho en México”.

The doorway for those imports is a 2,000-mile border, the world’s busiest. Yet some American politicians are doing their best to block it, out of fear of being swamped by immigrants. They could hardly be more wrong. Fewer Mexicans now move to the United States than come back south. America’s fragile economy (with an unemployment rate nearly twice as high as Mexico’s) has dampened arrivals and hastened departures. Meanwhile, the make-up of Mexican migration is changing. North of the border, legal Mexican residents probably now outnumber undocumented ones. The human tide may turn along with the American economy, but the supply of potential border-hoppers has plunged: whereas in the 1960s the average Mexican woman had seven children, she now has two. Within a decade Mexico’s fertility rate will fall below America’s."

Anonymous said...

Just my two cents as an American of Korean descent:

There are big differences among the various "Asian American" subgroups (people know this, right?).


Sure, different now in the 1st and 2nd generations. But, by the third generation, Asians "should", if not assimilate to more American mainstream standards, at least "merge" with one another. If not, does it not indicate that Asian aren't capable of full assimilation, even with other Asians?

Well, Japanese-American's are on their 5th generation and look at their religious affiliations.

What you are doing with the rest of your post is to argue and negotiate for multiculturalism as an inalienable right.

Garland said...

"Indeed, the American definition of assimilation required the immigrant to give up all things "foreign" other than his religion and his last name (even that had to go in some cases)."

What else is there?

Garland said...

"This wasn't just an idea from 1900. As recently as 1967, Norman Podhoretz wrote about how Jews could only gain acceptance in elite American circle by giving up their ethnic identity, and becoming ersatz WASPs. ... "

Meaning what exactly? I've always wondered this. Obviously it doesnt mean converting to Protestantism. What did they have to give up and of what attribute of wasps did they have to become ersatz.

Silver said...

In 2011 the Mexican economy grew faster than Brazil’s—and will do so again in 2012."

This is the sort of drivel you read in the non-economic MSM, not something you'd expect to see in a publication called The Economist.

One or two years of growth data are essentially meaningless. It's not indicative of anything at all. It's just cheap propagandizing designed to impress the intellectually insecure Economist reader wannabe. So what if Mexico grew faster than Brazil in 2011 in 2012? The difference is not large. In fact, Brazil in 2007 and 2008 grew at a significantly faster rate than Mexico, so what would the author of the above drivel make of that fact?

But that cheapness of this propaganda pales in comparison to what follows:

The doorway for those imports is a 2,000-mile border, the world’s busiest. Yet some American politicians are doing their best to block it, out of fear of being swamped by immigrants.

Right, cos trade occurs at _every single point_ along that border, right? Lulzzers. There are about fifty border crossing points today. How about a deal? Quadruple the number of border crossings to some 200 and allow for each being a mile-wide (excessive, but just to shut them up). In return, the other 1800 miles gets a concrete fence, concertina wire, moat and surrounding minefields? How about it?

ben tillman said...

There's another reason immigrants were historically able to assimilate: they were white.

Not necessarily. At least two Chinese colonies in 19th-century Louisiana -- one in the Shreveport area and one in South Louisiana -- dissolved into the White population through intermarriage. Once in a great while, you may meet one of their descendants with a name like Joe instead of Cho.

The original Siamese twins -- Chang and Eng Bunker (from Siam but of Chinese descent) -- settled in North Carolina, became naturalized citizens, bought a farm and Black slaves, and married White sisters named Yates in 1843. (This is of particular amusement to me, whose second girlfriend was a Yates from NC.)

Between the two, they had 21 children. Each of the twins had one son who served in the Confederate army. (Presumably, given the date of the marriage, they were the only ones old enough.)

Their descendants were absorbed into the White population. I recently saw one on "Antiques Roadshow" on PBS.

That's assimilation.

Silver said...

Meaning what exactly? I've always wondered this. Obviously it doesnt mean converting to Protestantism. What did they have to give up and of what attribute of wasps did they have to become ersatz.

It meant keeping your ethnic identity under cover and playing pretend. I'm not just being facetious; that actually worked. At least it worked better than people flaunting their ethnic identities and demanding endless recognition of their suffering and pain and suffering and alienation and suffering and difficulties and suffering and....on and on, forever and ever.

Truth said...

This is all horseshit. Asians don't vote for Republicans for president because they run a more correspondingly odious candidate for president in each election:

The Kingmaker
The Cripple
Boy George
Juan Pablo Mechano
Mittler

Please, grow up.

ben tillman said...

Something that isn't mentioned is that Asians (esp the Chinese, who are the 800 lb gorilla of Asia) are spoonfed an even more PC liberal view of the world than we have been. It feeds into their natural trends towards racial nationalism to believe that white men, who have been besting them for centuries, are evil stupid thieves, who used racism to get to the top.

Wow -- that makes no sense whatsoever. How could stupid people use *anything* to get to the top?

Skeptical Economist said...

The Economist is NOT a reliable source of information about Mexico (to say the least). All you get is (generally) dumb Open Borders propaganda.

For the "reality-based" community see

Purchasing Power Parity Converted GDP Per Capita Relative to the United States, average GEKS-CPDW, at current prices for Mexico
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/PGD2USMXA621NUPN?cid=33109

In 1950, Mexico's per-capita GDP was 28.26% of the US. In 2012, it was 28.98% of the US.

In other words, there was no income convergence in 62 years and the absolute gap actually rose.

Hip To Be Square said...

very much helps that Defining Yourself in Opposition to the Mainstream is the mainstream

see: baby boomers, Woodstock, the Rolling Stones, Nike, ad nauseum

Steve Sailer said...

"In 1950, Mexico's per-capita GDP was 28.26% of the US. In 2012, it was 28.98% of the US"

That's fascinating that Mexico was closer to the U.S. in the third quarter of the 20th Century than in the fourth.

Mexico was a big winner from WWII economically. In 1946, the Mexican League in baseball paid big bonuses to get 18 American major leaguers to break their contracts to join the Mexican League.

American bohemians spent a lot of time in Mexico City back then. That's where William Burroughs killed his wife.

Truth = definitely not a grind said...

Dear Truthproof, that particular fallacy is known as "begging the question" FYI

Anonymous said...

No one is every shocked when highly educated, socially liberal non-Christians who live in big cities vote for Democrats. Except when they are Asians.

I'm sure that socially conservative, rural Christian Asians are overwhelmingly Republican. All 10 of them!

If Republicans abandoned social issues, they'd pick up Asians as well as socially liberal whites. But then they'd risk losing white social conservatives, so it might be a wash.

Anonymous said...

The doorway for those imports is a 2,000-mile border, the world’s busiest. Yet some American politicians are doing their best to block it, out of fear of being swamped by immigrants.

The USA-Canada are the two largest trading partners in the world. So the border with Mexico is not the busiest, unless of course the category is illegal border crossers.

Canada has taken full advantage of her position next to the world's largest market and is every bit the equivalent in standard of living. Hence, you don't see a quarter of the Canadian population wishing to bum rush the US border.

Praising Mexico for its apparent recent growth is pathetic. Mexico occupies a catbird position next to the world's top economy and should be much wealthier. If the Mexicans were smart, they'd conduct their education system in English, like the Dutch and others, to take advantage of their two rich North American neighbors. There is no reason Mexico could not have taken over the call center business that India and the Philippines did except for the fact that they appear to cling to Spanish as a way to avoid kowtowing to the US. That stubbornness has cost them.

Anonymous said...

Something that isn't mentioned is that Asians (esp the Chinese, who are the 800 lb gorilla of Asia) are spoonfed an even more PC liberal view of the world than we have been. It feeds into their natural trends towards racial nationalism to believe that white men, who have been besting them for centuries, are evil stupid thieves, who used racism to get to the top.

I don't think they think white men are stupid, if their reading choices are any indication:

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/life/2012-11/08/content_15895481.htm

"The bookshelves of Chinese state leaders are sometimes a source of curiosity for ordinary readers to understand their personal interests or possible policy orientations.

"The Old Regime and the Revolution," an 1856 treatise written by French political thinker Alexis de Tocqueville, is the latest work to be scrutinized by netizens after rumors spread that the book is among those read by China's central leaders.

The previous favorite was Marcus Aurelius's "Meditation," which became a bestseller after Premier Wen Jiabao quoted it twice during his second term."

Anonymous said...

In 1950, Mexico's per-capita GDP was 28.26% of the US. In 2012, it was 28.98% of the US.

In other words, there was no income convergence in 62 years and the absolute gap actually rose.


True. Though the US did grow like gangbusters after WW2 and outpaced virtually everyone for a few decades.

Anonymous said...

In 1950, Mexico's per-capita GDP was 28.26% of the US. In 2012, it was 28.98% of the US.

In other words, there was no income convergence in 62 years and the absolute gap actually rose.


What's been the growth rate in Mexico? Wealth has always been more extremely centralized in Mexico, so any productivity gains would have gone disproportionately to the small class of land barons.

Silver said...

In 1950, Mexico's per-capita GDP was 28.26% of the US. In 2012, it was 28.98% of the US.

In other words, there was no income convergence in 62 years and the absolute gap actually rose.


That's not quite true. There was a tremendous spurt of "convergence" (not a term I like) between 1950 and 1980. Then there was the Latin American financial crisis of the early 80s which led to the period known as the "lost decade," and other difficulties during the transition to more open trade in the 1990s which saw growth stall in virtually every Latin country from about 1980 to 1995 (give or take). But inflation in those countries is everywhere under control today and the basics of free markets and trade have been established and you have to figure that the trend towards greater convergence has essentially been reestablished.

I dislike the term "convergence" because it assumes that all countries simply must eventually converge. But why? All countries aren't equal so why must they? I don't see the slightest reason. My temptation is to dismiss it as yet more equalitarian propaganda -- until I remind myself that some out there are still sincerely convinced that human populations are, appearances aside, essentially identical.

Neil Edmondson said...

In Canada, the Conservative party is actually *more* popular with immigrants than non-immigrants:

http://www.punditsguide.ca/2011/09/who-really-won-the-%E2%80%9Cethnic%E2%80%9D-vote-in-the-may-election/

Conservatives won 42% of immigrant vote - immigrants are 90% non-white - versus 37% of non-immigrants.

Has this ever happened anywhere, ever? As a conservative, it's fucking beautiful, man. Time and demographics are on our side.

Seriously, I nearly blow my load every time I respond to a criticism of conservatives being troglodytes by pointing out that's "racist". And poor bashing, too - the tendency to vote conservative actually declines as income increases.

Bash conservatism, and you bash the poor and bash immigrants. Can you imagine how fun that is?

Chinese especially seem to dig conservatives, South Asians finally warmed up too. They don't move here for gay marriage or pay equity, they're here to thrive economically, ideally without their kids getting a homoerotic curriculum shoved down their throat. Even the Jewish community which traditionally voted 80% left is now Conservative - Conservatives got 57% of the Jewish vote last election.

I don't think this can be replicated in the USA, but still interesting.

Anonymous said...

No Steve, I know so many Asians that I don't find them intimidating anymore.

Why do Asian women marry the lowest of the low white males when they could marry the highest of their own men?

Part of it is a form of warfare, but the other part is...

Because the white male is awesome.

That's why Asians vote Democrat and that is why they have more in common with Blacks and Hispanics.


California kid said...

Asians vote Democratic for a simple reason. It's a race war planet and they know it. They don't care about maintaining a Republic. Not at all.

Señor Choloquito said...

As mentioned, the GOP's war mongering is a deal breaker for many younger, better educated people. The GOP establishment has failed to face up to how much the Iraq war damaged their brand.

Good luck with that.

jody said...

"Before we take this too far, let's realize that there were plenty of damn good reason's not to vote for Mitt Romney."

like what? is this the perfect candidate thing again? romney was not perfect. millions of us hated his flip flopping and a few of his policy positions. but the other option was an openly racist, openly anti-american, marxist, socialist, shamelessly lying, ass covering affirmative action puppet who can't even count. the choice here was so obvious. there's never been a more stark choice.

"GOP elites need to realize that you're not going to rouse immigrants with warmongering."

that's not to say the US is 100% certain to have avoided a military engagement with iran by re-electing obama. the chances went down, but they're not zero. obama certainly hasn't ruled it out, and has clearly thought about it considering the US navy's posture. he has already antagonized iran with olympic games, and moved 3 aircraft carriers towards iran. the enterprise, lincoln, and stennis has all patrolled the area with the stennis still there right now.

i certainly am against any direct military conflict with iran, to the point where i'd much, much rather see iran procure nuclear fisson devices in the kiloton range than see the US navy get into bombing iran. but if romney was elected, and the US got a military conflict with iran out of that, well, a military conflict with iran would have been worth getting obama out of office.

it costs trillions of dollars less to let romney go to war with iran while running the US government and reducing spending to a more sane level, than it does to let obama run the US government for another 4 years and borrow another 1 trillion dollars every 9 months. oh, and like i said, still no guarantee romney goes to war, or obama doesn't go to war.

jody said...

i continued to be baffled by the idea that picking obama is picking peace. obama is a war monger and has not voluntarily ended any US military conflicts - and has actually started new ones. it's just the day he took office, the media stopped reporting on them, and the liberals stopped yelling about them.

why would liberals care if the US got into a military conflict with iran?

1) they personally won't be fighting in the conflict. not only is it no physical threat to them, almost 100% of the fighting and dying will be done by red state euro american men. people they hate.

2) liberals don't care if americans get killed in wars. the day obama took office they instantly and permanently shut up about americans getting killed overseas. obama has gotten thousands of americans killed. liberal interest level = 0.

3) liberals don't care if the US spends hundreds of billions of dollars on war. the day obama took office they instantly and permanently shut up about 100 billion dollar a year budgets for individual military conflicts. obama has actually spent more on them each year than GW bush. liberal interest level = 0.

4) liberals don't care if innocent bystanders get killed by american military action. again, as soon as obama took office, well you know the drill. obama's been getting innocent people blown up for 4 years now, and well, yeah.

so, if liberals don't care about not having to fight themselves, don't care about americans getting killed, don't care about the cost or the money wasted, and don't care about random brown people 7000 miles away not getting blown up, why would they care if the US got into a conflict with iran?

Anonymous said...

No Steve, I know so many Asians that I don't find them intimidating anymore.

You were intimidated by them before?

Anonymous said...

This "abandon the social issues" meme is baffling to me. If the Republicans did that, what would they have left? A platform that combined calling for tax cuts and invading more of the Middle East? Their positions on "social issues" seem to be the only civilizational principles that they have. At least they stand for something.

They've been useless on immigration, the expansion of government, foreign policy... Scary to think that the other party is worse.

Anonymous said...

People vote in accord with their own (perceived) interests.
Formerly, political polarization was based on social class, but since the days of JFK and the whole 'civil rights' bandwagon bullpoopy, the dominant theme in American politics has been 'minority' interest , with the Democrat Party playing the part of the advocate of everyone except white men - and using government policy, law enforcement etc as the lever of divesting real wealth and power from white men and distributing it to those 'minorities' (ie everyone else including white women) whom the Democrat Party deems to be 'victims'.
That, in a nutshell, has been the basic theme of American politics since 1960, and it is unlikely to change. The opposition, the Reublicans, basically make little histrionic shows of faux outrage against this modern American settlement, but in truth have done nothing and will do nothing to change it.
How do Asians fit in to this? - Instinctively, they (rightly) see the integrity and safety of their families to settle on US soil (and partake of the good life), as priority number one. They know full well that the core, primal value of the Democrats (a cause which, no exaggerration, millions of white lefties would kill other whites for and sacrifice the lives of their children for), is true racial equality, multi racialism, multi culturalism and 'defending minorities'.
Hence it is oonly natural, for deep. deep human values based on the the most fundamental law of nature (ie self-preservation), that Asians vote Democrat.

jody said...

putting obama into office put holder into office, which has compromised the FBI, which has compromised the CIA. so much for the democrats having national security locked down and taking the issue off the table for republicans. and then there's napolitano. don't get me started.

"Incidentally, Romney's chief policy advisor during the campaign was a guy named Lanhee Chen"

seems hard to believe. he's younger than me. in no way do i feel a 34 year old is experienced enough to hold that position. probably another reason romney seemed like he was getting bad advice. sorry, but you don't get good advice on stuff as important as being PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES from a 34 year old. chen is, as per the constitution, not even old enough to run for president himself.

next time tony stewart gets driving advice from a 15 year old without a driver's license, let me know.

"The doorway for those imports is a 2,000-mile border, the world’s busiest. Yet some American politicians are doing their best to block it, out of fear of being swamped by immigrant"

nobody is trying to block trade. in fact, almost nobody is even trying to secure the border. the opposite is true. there are hundreds of politicians trying to keep the border open, even unguarded. it would not be difficult to secure the border and reduce the illegal immigration rate 90% while maintaining 99% of import export traffic. that's not a technical challenge.

"Fewer Mexicans now move to the United States than come back south."

not only is this not true, but the rate of OTMs entering illegally has increased. that's "other than mexicans" for those not up on border patrol lingo. while the rate of legal and illegal immigration from mexico is down from it's peak last decade, the US is still taking on hundreds of thousands of mexicans per year, both legally and illegally.

"America’s fragile economy (with an unemployment rate nearly twice as high as Mexico’s) has dampened arrivals and hastened departures."

if that were true, wouldn't it mean romney was correct about self deportation?

Anonymous said...

Ok here it is Steve....another dimension to add...

Asians may be smart and successful....But are they Happy?

Aha! My white friends are all more successful than my Asian friends for the following reasons...none of these reasons are financial or educational...

- Super loving wives/husbands
- Cute passel of kids
- Extended families (or close friends)
- Tons of jokes
- Really amazing yard and decorating sense to the point where it blows my mind
- Weights, yoga, zumba
- They always look like they are having a genuinely good time

There's a really vibrant inner life with whites.

Asians don't have this vibrant inner life which makes them part of that 'on the fringe' coalition of bitter non-whites that make up the Democratic base.

(I'm not saying all Asians, but on average...I can't really think of any hobbies or passions my Asian male friends have other than being proud of Gangam Style....Only one Asian female bakes whereas all my white female friends bake obsessively)

I think there is a genetic explanation for this...

Blacks have tons of sex and high egos.

Asians don't have much sex and maybe low egos.

Whites are in-between sexually and egotistically.

Could it be that some races are more Innately Happy than other races?

If you bake chocolate chip cookies every night, your going to be in a good mood and the likelihood is that your going to be more a part of that core group instead of that simmering angry fringe.

Now add in the fact that asian males are single cubicle dwellers, watching their women marry ass ugly loser white men, and they don't get a lot of sex. Now add in the "Lost Asian Male" syndrome that I've heard about in China (guys sitting around clubs not knowing how to distinguish themselves..just lost...I had a friend who visited China and mentioned this)

So the secret to assimilating Asians is...more baking, more yardwork, more Mommy Crafts, and more Zumba to lose the baby weight.

Not going to happen, nor should it happen. Whites should be whites and Asians should be Asians in Asia.




Anonymous said...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2012/11/07/china-reacts-to-obama-victory/1688563/

Anonymous said...

but the other option was an openly racist, openly anti-american, marxist, socialist, shamelessly lying, ass covering affirmative action puppet who can't even count.

I don't think Obama is really more of these things than the standard contemporary liberal white Dem president would be. I think a large part of why people tend to believe and say this though is because he's visibly different. I don't think its conscious, but an unconscious thing that arises from a lack of identification on a visceral level.

Anonymous said...

12:27 Anonymous

I spent my younger teen years intimidated by Asians

Then I realized that the "Oh it's the smart white girls" (must be said with disdain) and the "Oh I didn't even study for the test" (then found out the guy had a tutor spoon feeding him) or the 200 point jump in SAT scores from test prep...

Was all just a form of mental intimidation with no basis in reality once whites unleash their inner "I Want It More"

There's no IQ gap that can beat the deep down primal drumbeat of the "I want it More"

I want the A in math More
I want the success More
I want the life more
I want the country More
etc..etc..etc...

Whites, especially white men, need to reclaim this


Anonymous said...

it costs trillions of dollars less to let romney go to war with iran while running the US government and reducing spending to a more sane level, than it does to let obama run the US government for another 4 years and borrow another 1 trillion dollars every 9 months. oh, and like i said, still no guarantee romney goes to war, or obama doesn't go to war.

Reducing the deficit would have crashed the economy during Romney's first term. Romney certainly would have wanted to be re-elected for a second term, so it would have been unlikely that he would have reduced spending and the deficit.

Anonymous said...

Come to think of it...

There's only been two types of people I've ever heard use variants of the phrase

"The white girls"
"She dresses like a white girl"
"That white girl"

*You have to say it with disdain*

The people who said the above were either Asian or Hispanic...

That's why Asians vote Democrat

(Sample size of blacks not high enough)

Silver said...

True. Though the US did grow like gangbusters after WW2 and outpaced virtually everyone for a few decades.

That's not actually true.

Per capita US GDP grew at more or less the same rate from 1950-1975 as from 1975-2000, ~2.2% per annum.

All of Europe outpaced this growth rate from 1950-1980. Of course, Europe never managed to reach the same per capita level as the US, but it did manage to narrow the difference.

David M. said...

3 reasons off the top of my head:

1. As a previous commentator pointed out, we shouldn't be surprised that secular urban Asians vote Democratic when secular urban whites also vote Democratic

2. The ethnic identity politics, as described by numerous earlier comments

3. The view that Republicans are the party of rural religious whites, whom Asians see as adversaries. Asians' views of rural whites are largely formed by media and entertainment, and by the prejudices of SWPL friends and colleagues. Therefore they learn that rural American whites are backwards, Asian-hating neanderthals. Why would they vote for a party that represents the people that hate them?

While doing a project in b-school, I tried to convince my Asian-American classmates that people in the heartland would be willing to eat Chinese food, in fact, that they already do eat Chinese food. They refused to believe me.

Anonymous said...

1.) Asians are more conformist than other races. Voting Democrat is the message implicity sent to the public by the media, universities, entertainment industry, etc. Voting Republican is an act of subversion against this and, being unfavorably disposed toward rebellion, Asians don't vote for conservatives.

2.) The Democrats market themselves as the party of diversity, while the Republicans market themselves as the party of old America. All minorities naturally don't identify with old America, unless we insist they assimlate and do so - which we do not anymore.

3.) Lots of Asians are working and middle class, therefore having common class interests with the Democrats. Republican economic policies really aren't popular with the masses, but many vote against their economic interest because of cultural conservatism. Asians, not being assimilates, don't identify with American cultural conservatism and see no reason to vote against economic interests.

3.) American social conservatism means loving traditional Christianity, old America, and limited government. Asian social conservatism means obeying the government, not getting into trouble, and following your family's dictates. So not the same thing.

4.) Many Asian-Americans have parents who use SSI.

5.) Asians, when you adjust for education, probably underearn white males and are less likely to make it into the economic elite. So they may resent whites and feel racism is at work.

6.) White men poach Asian women and make Asian guys feel like beta geeks.

Anonymous said...

Asians may be smart and successful....But are they Happy?

I think there is a genetic explanation for this...

I think it's also financial. Not necessarily the wealth of individuals, but wealthier nations have more people who dedicate more time to hobbies and other quality of life pursuits, which becomes a part of the culture, thus rubbing off on everyone.

Asian societies, like most societies in history, have always been totalitarian with the vast majority living in abject poverty, until very recently. We're talking mere decades except for Japan. There probably is still a very strong sense of "financial survive/thrive" mentality even when rearing children. That's something most Whites either lost or have made less of a priority.

Quality of life is still equated with financial well being among most Asians. Of course this is in group dynamics and not individuals.

A caveat to this theory is that it only applies once the financial light bulb has been turned on. SE Asians and rural East Asians, still seem to know how to have a good time.

If you apply this theory to Europeans, generally speaking, people from former great empires are less financially aggressive and more focused on quality of life pursuits than former small empires. Eastern more financially aggressive than western.

Maybe I'm just pulling it all out of my ass.

Anonymous said...

Asians are more conformist than other races

I don't necessarily believe this. Let me explain carefully. My thought is that individuals aren't necessarily more conforming genetically, but their societies might be more demanding of conformity. So they are socialized to be more conforming.

Western civilization is more generous in allowing people to express their individuality, but all people are generally conformist, otherwise we would all be anti-social.

Also, if we are to use a conformity-individuality stratum based on race, Blacks should be the most individualistic. And their culture/society might very well be, but under slavery...

Again, maybe just pulling it out of my ass. But I think there group dynamics that come into play that aren't necessarily just a sum of the individual pieces.

Anonymous said...

good night Steve.

Anonymous said...

Also, let's not forget...

Would White Republican Women be happy to embrace Asian Women in the same political party?

I would never in a million years have anything to do with an WM/AF couple. Please, all of those couples join the Democrats. I want them to.

So the answer is...

No.

Don't piss off the White Female Republicans by introducing a sexual predator/competitor.



Anonymous said...

Just so you know...Sean Lowe, the Nordic God of every white woman's dream....picks the Asian chick on the upcoming Bachelor series.

The only women I know who watch The Bachelor are white women. My facebook page comes alight with cross chats and real time updates. So this is like a major slap in the face.

The only consolation is that they will break up and the whole thing is for marketing, business and image. But still...

Even on Jersey Shore Sam had a shit fit over Ron's ex-asian gf.






Anonymous said...


"Don't piss off the White Female Republicans by introducing a sexual predator/competitor. "

Instead we do the exact opposite, introduce latino, black, asian, indian men who endlessly validate the white woman. Clubs are full of non-whites hitting on white women and there are far fewer desirable/eligible indian, mexican, black women out there for white men. Asians are the exception.

Anonymous said...

I don't know many Asians, but I live in a heavily Hispanic area, and they are assimilating. They're just not assimilating into YOUR America. Since the media and schools which influence them are not controlled by your kind of Americans, why would they?

Gene Berman said...

Ben Tillman:

In case you weren't aware, each "Siamese" twin had a grandson who became a general in the U.S. Army. One of them assembled personnel to carry out Hiroshima and Nagasaki A-bombings and (at his chosen pilot's request) named the plane "Enola Gay" (for the pilot's mother).

The other was involved, with limited success, in bombing oil installations in Rumania.

All in all, nothing quite as interesting as must have been the twins' bedroom!

sunbeam said...

Anonymous wrote:

"Asians are more conformist than other races

I don't necessarily believe this. Let me explain carefully. My thought is that individuals aren't necessarily more conforming genetically, but their societies might be more demanding of conformity. So they are socialized to be more conforming.

Western civilization is more generous in allowing people to express their individuality, but all people are generally conformist, otherwise we would all be anti-social.

Also, if we are to use a conformity-individuality stratum based on race, Blacks should be the most individualistic. And their culture/society might very well be, but under slavery...

Again, maybe just pulling it out of my ass. But I think there group dynamics that come into play that aren't necessarily just a sum of the individual pieces."

I've thought for a while that the origins of this kind of thing are due to the fact that orientals, particularly Chinese and Japanese have had truly massive cities (compared to the rest of the world) for a long, long time. In other words it's a way to keep the lid from blowing off in an urban environment.

My understanding is that China historically has frequently had population numbers that were close to the maximum they could maintain with the very productive farm areas they had (See Farmers of 40 Centuries).

This isn't a situation where too many boat rockers are a good thing.

sunbeam said...

Garland wrote:

"

"This wasn't just an idea from 1900. As recently as 1967, Norman Podhoretz wrote about how Jews could only gain acceptance in elite American circle by giving up their ethnic identity, and becoming ersatz WASPs. ... "

Meaning what exactly? I've always wondered this. Obviously it doesnt mean converting to Protestantism. What did they have to give up and of what attribute of wasps did they have to become ersatz."

I think Jews converted to the real American religion, consumerism.

I'm not sure they did it to fit in however.

Truth said...

"Dear Truthproof, that particular fallacy is known as "begging the question" FYI"

Q: Why don't Asians vote for Republicans?

A: Because they run bad candidates.

Now where, Socrates, would this be considered "begging the question."

Truth said...

"ike what? is this the perfect candidate thing again? romney was not perfect. millions of us hated his flip flopping and a few of his policy positions."

How can you hate "a few of his policy positions?" He did not proffer any "policy positions."

Truth said...

"Anonymous said...

No Steve, I know so many Asians that I don't find them intimidating anymore.

You were intimidated by them before?"

LOL, who wants his ass kicked going to the bathroom between homeroom and first period algebra.

Truth said...

"seems hard to believe. he's younger than me. in no way do i feel a 34 year old is experienced enough to hold that position. probably another reason romney seemed like he was getting bad advice. sorry, but you don't get good advice on stuff as important as being PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES from a 34 year old."

Mittens knew he was going to win, he just wanted somebody to play Madden '13 with.

NOTA said...

jody:

Perhaps the reason so manny voters voted in ways incomprehensible to you is because they don't see the same set of facts you do? For example, I have seen zero evidence that Obama is anti-American, socialist, or Marxist. I am not a fan of the man, but that all looks like nonsense to me. Similarly, while he almost certainly wouldn't be in the white house today if he had white skin or had self-identified as Barry Soetero the Indonesian, he seems reasonably bright and capable in interviews and debates, and the reports I've read from people whohave talked with him have been pretty impressed.

From where I sit, there are plenty of reasons not to like Obama, but you haven't mentioned any of those--instead, you seem to be repeating the kind of empty propaganda that only appeals to the true believers on your own side. Not only does that mean you won't convince anyone not already on yur side, it also means you won't understand anyone nor already on your side.

Josh Yellowfever said...

There are ways to win back Asian American quickly if GOP does this:

1) Outreach to Asian American organizations, particularly those non-Christian groups, and make those outreaches very public events.

2) Stop demonizing major Asian countries such as China or Japan. Many East Asian voters have connection one way or another to their roots, just like Jews to Isreal.

3) Champion race neutral employment or college admission, and make it front and center, in contrast to democrats.

4) Recruit Asian faces in the campaign.

5) Reduce military intervention rhetorics. Most Asians are anti-war. It simply does not make sense to intervene in the region of little significance to the US except ideology. Obama is a lot better in this area. Military spending should be reduced accordingly since it is not justified.

If Mitt Romney did this, he probably could have won half the asian votes, and won both Florida and virginia, and made it very tight in Ohio. Would he lose some white votes because of this? I don't think so. The arm industry base would support him because he is a lesser evil than Obama.

Josh Yellowfever said...

"Don't piss off the White Female Republicans by introducing a sexual predator/competitor."

Majority of white females are with democrats anyway. What more to lose? Would you wote democrats if you see a few prominent asian women in GOP?

Cail Corishev said...

"While doing a project in b-school, I tried to convince my Asian-American classmates that people in the heartland would be willing to eat Chinese food, in fact, that they already do eat Chinese food. They refused to believe me."

That's funny. My small town in the heartland has about one Chinese restaurant for every 15,000 people, plus a Japanese steakhouse, and there was a Thai place for several years, but it closed down recently. There are still more Asian restaurants than any other ethnicity. I've been known to complain that we have multiple Chinese buffets, but not a single American-style buffet here.

Lucius said...

anonymous writes: "If you bake chocolate chip cookies every night, your going to be in a good mood and the likelihood is that your going to be more a part of that core group instead of that simmering angry fringe."

--I appreciate anonymous' portrayal of bourgeois bliss, which is thoughtful and does have a certain charm, but--it's almost an SWPL self-parody.

And those cookies add calories, and your solution is-- zumba.

Look, I'm not a complete prude about public dancing, but I think I'd about as well see my wife cuckold me as see her off to a zumba class. If you're going to sin, might as well sin big.

And frankly, I have a notion it amounts to the same thing. What sort of coked-up serial polyamorist hen does *zumba*?

Once you've watched the mother of your children tart herself out in a lycra leotard with graphics ripped from "Fresh Prince of Bel-Air", all in the not-so-innocuous name of "fitness", it's game over man, game over.

--"So the secret to assimilating Asians is...more baking, more yardwork, more Mommy Crafts, and more Zumba to lose the baby weight." You add:

"Not going to happen, nor should it happen. Whites should be whites and Asians should be Asians in Asia."

--To your conclusion, I'm giving a qualified "yes" to the 2nd sentence and an unreserved "Amen" to the first.

Maybe if I can memorize all of Mencius I could convince them to let me immigrate?

Skeptical Economist said...

"It meant keeping your ethnic identity under cover and playing pretend. I'm not just being facetious; that actually worked. At least it worked better than people flaunting their ethnic identities and demanding endless recognition of their suffering and pain and suffering and alienation and suffering and difficulties and suffering and....on and on, forever and ever."

Yes.

Skeptical Economist said...

"True. Though the US did grow like gangbusters after WW2 and outpaced virtually everyone for a few decades."

Absolutely not. Check out http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/categories/33109

Italy is a typical case in point. In 1950, Italian per-capita GDP was 40% of the U.S. By 1970 it was 70% of the U.S. See http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/PGD2USITA621NUPN?cid=33109.

Skeptical Economist said...

"What's been the growth rate in Mexico?"

See http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/RGDPCHMXA625NUPN?cid=33111

Easy answer. Fast growth until 1980. Slow growth after 1980. Why? Mexico is a case study in failed neoliberalism (a long story).

Skeptical Economist said...

"But inflation in those countries is everywhere under control today and the basics of free markets and trade have been established and you have to figure that the trend towards greater convergence has essentially been reestablished."

Nice theory (seriously). However, there is nothing in the Mexico data to support it. See http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/PGD2USMXA621NUPN?cid=33109

"I dislike the term "convergence" because it assumes that all countries simply must eventually converge. But why? All countries aren't equal so why must they? I don't see the slightest reason."

Yes.

Skeptical Economist said...

"In Canada, the Conservative party is actually *more* popular with immigrants than non-immigrants:"

Kudos. An important note.

Anonymous said...

Hello? Instead of asking WHY AREN'T asians Republicans - ask WHY SHOULD Asians be Republicans.

What do the R's offer Asians that the Dems don't? Why should ANY low-income Asian vote "R"? The truth is the "D's" are the natural home of minorities and there's nothing the R's can do about it.

Asians (Generalization) are NOT social conservatives. They are NOT patriotic, & they have no family tradition of voting "R". They can only be appealed to by the "R's" on money issues and even then low-income Asians and those who benefit from government spending will STILL vote "D".

Anonymous said...

BTW, I've seen assimilation among Asians DECLINE massively in the last 15 years. Example: at work Asians used to use "Anglo" first names Joe/Sam/George. Its only when you knew them they reveled their "real" first name "Hyun" "Mei" etc.

Now, they simply use their chinese/korean/Filipino first name.

Anonymous said...

i tend to think that asians go dem for the same reason that 97% white new hampshirites go for obama.

asians have nothing to fear from a guy like romney, which is basically a more charismatic version of huntsman. if they were a pack of welfare bums or government employment-dependents, voting for the party of big government would make sense.

but the obsession with abortion, gays and war is offputting to middle class and upper middle class voters of the non-evangelical bent. the cultural aspects are probably a second order effect if even that.

my two cents.

Skeptical Economist said...

"As mentioned, the GOP's war mongering is a deal breaker for many younger, better educated people. The GOP establishment has failed to face up to how much the Iraq war damaged their brand."

Very, very true. History says that it takes a party many years to overcome this. WWI crushed the Democrats in the 1920s. 1920 was an absurdly lopsided election. No Democrat would have been elected to the White House before 1940 had it not been for the Great Depression.

Anonymous said...

"American white boys are suckers for this line of reasoning. My response would just be, "Hey, when China becomes 50% non-Chinese then we can talk."" - The one child policy may well be taking them there.

"In 1950, Mexico's per-capita GDP was 28.26% of the US. In 2012, it was 28.98% of the US.

In other words, there was no income convergence in 62 years and the absolute gap actually rose.

True. Though the US did grow like gangbusters after WW2 and outpaced virtually everyone for a few decades. " - Mexico's population was ~25M in 1950, and is ~120M with an additional 30-50M in America today. That has to be taken into account for such things obviously, they had a ton of economic growth directed towards absurd levels of population growth.

Anonymous said...

In Canada, the Conservative party is actually *more* popular with immigrants than non-immigrants

I wouldn't go so far as to say that, but I have noticed that the Canadian Conservative party attracts far more immigrants and minorities than its American Republican equivalent. The Conservatives are also less involved with the Religious Right than the Republicans.

Truth said...

"here are plenty of reasons not to like Obama, but you haven't mentioned any of those--instead, you seem to be repeating the kind of empty propaganda that only appeals to the true believers on your own side. Not only does that mean you won't convince anyone not already on yur side, it also means you won't understand anyone nor already on your side."

jody,...


bleach said...

Other than desperate nerds obsessed with Asian chicks(for mostly naive reasons), why does anyone care about this?

Asians are a small minority mostly concentrated in states where the GOP is not even competitive. They could not possibly have made a difference in the outcome of the last election, or any Federal elections, so it is weird that so much energy is being spent on this subject. It is socially interesting, I suppose, but not politically important.

sunbeam said...

Anonymous said:

"In Canada, the Conservative party is actually *more* popular with immigrants than non-immigrants

I wouldn't go so far as to say that, but I have noticed that the Canadian Conservative party attracts far more immigrants and minorities than its American Republican equivalent. The Conservatives are also less involved with the Religious Right than the Republicans."

Doesn't Canada get a far better off financially immigrant than the United States as a result of their immigration policy?

Silver said...

Nice theory (seriously). However, there is nothing in the Mexico data to support it. See http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/PGD2USMXA621NUPN?cid=33109

I was referring to L. America generally, not just Mexico. But look at your own data more carefully. What happened between 2000 and 2010? You could dismiss it as noise, but when you consider supporting evidence across the rest of the region I think you'd agree that Mexico is a part in what is taking place. Ten years from now which do you believe more likely: will Mexico have narrowed the gap with the US or widened it? My money's definitely on the former.

Silver said...

BTW, I've seen assimilation among Asians DECLINE massively in the last 15 years. Example: at work Asians used to use "Anglo" first names Joe/Sam/George. Its only when you knew them they reveled their "real" first name "Hyun" "Mei" etc.

If the trend you've noticed is real (and I have little trouble believing it is) it doesn't necessarily reflect a lesser desire to assimilate. It just means that they're acculturating to the "new normal": the leftarded, vulgarized, degenerate anti-white culture of the early 21st west.

Future Headlines of 2014 said...

The two parties need to find an outreach strategy to appeal more to Zumba Moms

Skeptical Economist said...

silver,

"I was referring to L. America generally, not just Mexico. But look at your own data more carefully. What happened between 2000 and 2010? You could dismiss it as noise, but when you consider supporting evidence across the rest of the region I think you'd agree that Mexico is a part in what is taking place. Ten years from now which do you believe more likely: will Mexico have narrowed the gap with the US or widened it? My money's definitely on the former"

I checked the IMF WEO 2012 database (http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2012/02/weodata/index.aspx)

After I got past DSK's private stash of pictures (just kidding).

Mexico's 2000-2010 growth rate was 1.63%. Per-capita growth was 0.25%. That's a bit unfair because of the crash of 20008.

The 2000-2012 growth rate was 2.0% with per-capita growth of 0.66%. In other words, Mexico is not converging at any appreciable rate.

Post a Email address and I will send you the spreadsheet.

As for the future, who knows? Will the U.S. economy ever revive? I have my doubts. Will Mexico embrace the hard left? Eventually Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador will probably be elected. Will he be a pragmatic rules ala Lula da Silva or a Chavez?

A modest note in this context is that Mexico's oil production is falling. Not a fast as some people think. But it is falling. Declining oil production is likely to be a (modest) brake on growth. Of course, China is a much greater problem.

Maxwell said...

The fact is, Romney pissed off the Asian community by smacking around China in his campaigning with talks about confronting China on currency manipulation, etc.

The fact is, alot of Chinese here are extremely loyal to the homeland and hypersensitive to the slights about it. Add to that the other reasons discussed about being academic, urban, copying white liberals, etc and you have the making for a group that is going to vote strongly Dem. But does it really matter? 100+ comments about it, and the real problem is that nearly half of whites voted Dem. Sailer is right, unify whites and you win. Even if 100% of Asians vote Dem, they are only a small minority.

Corn said...

"The fact is, alot of Chinese here are extremely loyal to the homeland and hypersensitive to the slights about it."

I just heard an argument to cut Asian immigration!

Anonymoustache said...

They can only be appealed to by the "R's" on money issues and even then low-income Asians and those who benefit from government spending will STILL vote "D".

Republican voters = high income is a fallacy. Strange that you subscribe to it.

The Blue States are wealthier than the Red States. The most Republican region, Appalachia, is the poorest and most dependent on govt region, while very heavily Democrat Silicon Valley is the most entrepreneurial and among the wealthiest. Of the 10 wealthiest counties 8 voted Democrat.

The correlation that stands is race: the great majority of whites voted Republican while the great majority of non-whites voted Democrat. It is as simple as that.



rec1man said...

In Canada, a Sikh can run as Sikh and win a Conservative seat

In the USA, a Sikh, has to convert to christianity before she can win the Republican primary

Silver said...

In other words, Mexico is not converging at any appreciable rate.

Yeah, I know. I didn't say it was. At an appreciable rate or not, the point is the last 12 years has seen the reestablishment of the trend towards convergence. And once more, this is more pronounced elsewhere in L. America.

Not that it should matter very much to anyone in those countries. Growth is what matters, not "convergence." As long as they're growing, whether they're "converging" or or not they're on the right track. It would be better for their sake if they were converging simply because it takes away a possible line of attack from the lunatic left (who use anything they get their hands on, as well all know).

Post a Email address and I will send you the spreadsheet.

The IMF WEO data? I already have it. Check out the Total Economy Database if you haven't already done so. The data is neatly arranged and goes back to 1950. Very handy reference.

NOTA said...

Anonmoustache:

Actually, there are two different things going on:

a. At the level of states, richer states tend to be more Democratic.

b. At the level of individual voters, richer voters tend to be more Republican.

Andrew Gellman has a bunch of data on this stuff.

Anonymous said...

"In Canada, a Sikh can run as Sikh and win a Conservative seat" - In Canada there are enough Sikhs to make that possible, and they don't vote for non-Sikhs under any circumstances.

Anonymous said...

Then maybe Sikhs should go to Canada. We don't have the best of history with congressmen bringing weapons onto the floor anyways so from my way at looking at it no big loss. Of course it might cut down my chances of catching bed bugs from a Sikh owned hotel but somehow I'll get through it.

Skeptical Economist said...

silver,

Checked the 2000-2012 data for the region. Some of it is actually encouraging. Sadly, the two biggest economies (Brazil and Mexico) haven't done that well (2.18%, 0.66%) in per-capita growth. Argentina has the third largest economy and has enjoyed 3.4% growth in per-capita GDP. Columbia has the fourth largest economy and a per-capita growth rate of 2.99%. Venezuela is the fifth largest economy with a growth rate of 1.49%.

Mexico is obviously the biggest disappointment in the group.

I also looked at the 32 year per-capita GDP data. Mexico is 0.76%. Brazil is 0.91%. Three countries are actually negative over a 32 year period. The big negative one is Venezuela.

Anonymous said...

in the free marketplace of ideas, the traditional mode of American racism has been defeated. i see a lot of people angry because they miss (or idealize) the once 90%-white country. that was some 60 years ago. it's not coming back. idaho was once 1/3 chinese. you know what happened after. you would need a hardcore expulsionist policy to make things happen your way. and the demographics will change much faster than the culture would have to decay to allow that kind of thinking to gain wide acceptance.

the restrictionist/expulsionist fringe has no party to advance that agenda because the rest of america is not interested in even considering it.

ben tillman said...

in the free marketplace of ideas, the traditional mode of American racism has been defeated. i see a lot of people angry because they miss (or idealize) the once 90%-white country. that was some 60 years ago. it's not coming back. idaho was once 1/3 chinese. you know what happened after. you would need a hardcore expulsionist policy to make things happen your way. and the demographics will change much faster than the culture would have to decay to allow that kind of thinking to gain wide acceptance.

the restrictionist/expulsionist fringe has no party to advance that agenda because the rest of america is not interested in even considering it.


That's an awful lot of typing just to say, "Fuck you!" You need an editor in the same way that you argue -- badly!

Silver said...

Skeptical,

2% per capita growth for Brazil is more encouraging than it appears at first glance. Just for perspective, that's definitely faster per capita growth than the US ever achieved during the 19th century (a sort of 'wonder era' in the minds of many a laissez faire votary).

I also looked at the 32 year per-capita GDP data. Mexico is 0.76%. Brazil is 0.91%. Three countries are actually negative over a 32 year period. The big negative one is Venezuela.

True enough as a matter of brute statistical fact, but that timeframe includes the financial crises and the opening up of trade transitional difficulties. It's like evaluating the recent growth of eastern European economies without allowing for the breakdown and transition from communism. It's part of the economic record, to be sure, but it obscures at least as much as it reveals.

Other positive news is the decline of inequality as measured by the Gini coefficient over the last dozen years too. Still plenty of inequality, of course, but the trend is decidedly down.

Hunsdon said...

Maxwell said: The fact is, alot of Chinese here are extremely loyal to the homeland and hypersensitive to the slights about it.

Hunsdon responded: Sir, you are dangerously close to perpetuating the old anti-Sinitic canard of dual loyalty!

Skeptical Economist said...

"Just for perspective, that's definitely faster per capita growth than the US ever achieved during the 19th century (a sort of 'wonder era' in the minds of many a laissez faire votary)."

No, not really. A quick check of Measuring Worth (http://www.measuringworth.com/index.php) shows many 10 year periods with 2+% growth in the 19th century. A few examples

1880-1890 2.86%
1870-1880 3.095%
1850-1860 2.027%

Notably 25 year per-capita GDP growth was 2.124% in 1890. In 1900 25 year per-capita GDP growth was 2.374%. An interesting note is that periods of high immigration appear to be associated with lower per-capita GDP growth an vice versa. Of course, correlation is not causation (Goldin disagrees).

Skeptical Economist said...

Continued,

However, the real substance of the issue at hand is convergence. Convergence is not a 10 year or 20 year process. More like 30 to 50 years. It makes sense to look at per-capita GDP growth over long periods of time. Fortuneately FRED makes that easy.

Latin American

Argentina - http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/PGD2USARA621NUPN?cid=33109
Belize - http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/PGD2USBZA621NUPN?cid=33109
Bolivia - http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/PGD2USBOA621NUPN?cid=33109
Brazil - http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/PGDPUSBRA621NUPN?cid=33109
Chile - http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/PGD2USCLA621NUPN?cid=33109
Columbia - http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/PGD2USCOA621NUPN?cid=33109
Costa Rica - http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/PGD2USCRA621NUPN?cid=33109
cuba - http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/PGD2USCUA621NUPN?cid=33109
Ecuador - http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/PGD2USECA621NUPN?cid=33109
El Salvador - http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/PGD2USSVA621NUPN?cid=33109
Guatemala - http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/PGD2USGTA621NUPN?cid=33109
Honduras - http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/PGD2USHNA621NUPN?cid=33109
Mexico - http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/PGD2USMXA621NUPN?cid=33109
Peru - http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/PGD2USPEA621NUPN?cid=33109
Uruguay - http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/PGD2USUYA621NUPN?cid=33109



Asia

China - http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/PGD2USCNA621NUPN?cid=33109
Hong Kong - http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/PGD2USHKA621NUPN?cid=33109
India - http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/PGD2USINA621NUPN?cid=33109
Indonesia - http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/PGD2USIDA621NUPN?cid=33109
Japan - http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/PGD2USJPA621NUPN?cid=33109
Korea - http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/PGD2USKRA621NUPN?cid=33109
Malaysia - http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/PGD2USMYA621NUPN?cid=33109
Singapore - http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/PGDPUSSGA621NUPN?cid=33109
Taiwan - http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/PGD2USTWA621NUPN?cid=33109

What does the data show? Pretty steady upwards trends in Asia and no long-term trend at all in Latin America. Notably, Central America appears to be doing significantly worse than the rest of Latin America. Some Latin American countries do show uptrends over the last 10 years. However, prior uptrends were closely tied to commodity prices (as is this one). When commodity prices stopped rising, growth collapsed.

Skeptical Economist said...

Continued,

The reasons for this aren't hard to understand. Asian countries have all attained high levels of education well before economic convergence. High education levels obviously facilitate the growth of skilled manufacturing and other high value-added industries. The underlying reasons for this may be a function of HBD or culture. However, the low levels of social capital in Latin America should not be ignored.

"Other positive news is the decline of inequality as measured by the Gini coefficient over the last dozen years too. Still plenty of inequality, of course, but the trend is decidedly down."

Probably true. However, inequality and growth don't appear to be particularly correlated (much to the disapointment of the left and right). I wouldn't expect any decline in inequality to trigger a growth spurt. Of course, growth might reduce inequality by expanding the middle-class (the Kuznets curve). However, it's not all that clear if the Kuznets model still applies.

By the way, the TED data is good. I had never seen it before from the Conference Board. It was quite familar to me back in the Angus Maddison era. A caveat is that the TED folks are focused on TFP. TFP is very important for a country such as the U.S., but not all that relevant to developing nations.

Anonymous said...

"Social Issues combined with identity are hugely turning off high IQ secular Asians. If the GOP moderates there is a chance to attract them."

White Americans are in the process of being dispossessed through an act of betrayal of their ruling class.

It makes no sense for any other ethnic group to ally with people who are unable to prevent their own stealth genocide.

The Cubans will start to change sides for the same reason.