The Big Sort

Food insecurity

bugger — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 03:36:23 GMT

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27771447

I thought this map was quite interesting. It shows the percentage of "food insecurity" (you'll have to check with the dept of agriculture to see how they figure that out) by state. Notice how closely it mirrors the Electoral Map in 2008? Most of the states above the national average for food insecurity voted for McCain, most of the states below the nat. avg. voted for Obama. If you compare the percentage of Obama votes with the food insecurity numbers, only one state with a food insecurity percentage above the nat avg voted overwhelmingly for Obama (DC) and only one state below the nat avg voted overwhelmingly for McCain (WY).

The links to the Slate blogs are broken at the moment, so I can't really see if you've discussed this or if it fits some other paradigm.

Robert Putnam and the Megachurch

fhdpjosc — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 13:45:02 GMT

The author, in rejecting the Megachurch political model says: "Self-government, however, is the opposite of self-love. Democracy is about meeting and coming to terms with people who look, talk, believe, and think differently from us. Government might work better if that democratic exercise began for voters during the campaign rather than the day after inauguration."

Sorry, guy. That notion of democracy was thrown out the window with multiculturalism. As Robert Putnam explains, the more diverse a culture is, the less trust there is of outsiders AND insiders.

We are now fragmenting into hundreds and thousands of little tribes, each of which needs its own sales pitch. What's "good for America" won't work.

We are moving into an Ottoman Empire-like millet system in which each ethnic, racial and religious group has its own quota -- its own set-asides -- (including the ever-shrinking white gentile tribe).

The most successful of these tribes will be able to play the other tribes off against each other and get the most wealth and power.

As Obama explained in his book "Dreams from my Father: a Story of Race and Inheritance", life is a struggle to find out which tribe is your real tribe, which tribe you owe loyalty to, and which tribe you will support, defend, and honor. He chose the black tribe.

He recognizes that he cannot sell the other tribes on his candidacy and that he needs members of the other tribes -- the Chinese, the Indians, the Mexicans, the Native Americans, the Whites and the Jews -- to sell their own tribe members.

The author's old "melting pot" idea in which we are all pitched as "Americans" is dead. Tribes matter. Diversity matter. Culture matters. Unless my own tribe persuades me, you don't get my vote.

For generations Jews have asked "is it good for the Jews?" Now everyone is asking that question. And (like Jews) we certainly don't trust members of other tribes to answer it.

Unsorting seems more like it

randy-khan — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 18:01:40 GMT

You'd hardly know from this piece that the vast majority of the counties in the country moved in the same direction. It is absolutely true that the blue counties got bluer, but so did most of the red counties. The only big chunks that got redder were in the south, along the Appalachians and in Arizona.

The same analysis works on a state level, and shows that there was considerable movement to the Democrats in formerly solid red states. The New York Times has a convenient map that makes this point quite obvious, but three states that went to McCain had no counties in which McCain did better than Bush (Montana, North Dakota, Utah), four states that went to McCain had only a handful of counties where McCain did better than Bush (Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota and Wyoming) and all nine of the states that flipped to the Democrats have blue shifts in nearly all of their counties. (Iowa had one county that shifted towards the Republicans, North Carolina had about five and Colorado, Indiana, Nevada and New Mexico appear to have none at all.) That's 16 states that were in the Republican column in 2004 that shifted towards the Democrats.

It certainly is true that most of the redder counties (excepting Arizona, for obvious reasons) were more rural, but lots and lots of rural counties shifted towards the Democrats. Based on the New York Times map, it looks like rural counties were somewhere on the order of 3 or 4 times more likely to move towards the Democrats than towards the Republicans. In fact, the New York Times reporting on this is very interesting. In New Mexico, the Democrats increased their share of rural voters by 18 percent, much more than in urban areas; in Ohio, their share went up by 11 percent (not as much as in urban areas, but pretty significant); and in Virginia, their share went up by 18 percent, more than in the suburbs and comparable to their increase in urban areas. Obama also did worse than Kerry in rural counties in some states, so the rural results were far from uniform.

While you certainly can find data to support the thesis that the urban/rural divide got bigger, I think a better analysis is that Obama as a candidate did not appeal to certain rural voters - those in the South and Appalachia. Everywhere else, including rural and non-rural red counties, it seems that he did at least as well as or better than Kerry, so in those places whatever divide there is likely got smaller.

ah, Bill, the economy is fucked

its yggy — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 17:47:21 GMT

Is it possible that voters, be they residents of blue, red, or pale counties, saw the plain reality in front of their faces without the need for help from political thinktanks and cable news?

Is it possible that Democrats finally found an articulate and appealing canidate to run?

ahhh, yeah, I'd say it is.

This article is BS

progressivebulldog — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 17:33:49 GMT

The article itself states that Obama won more rural votes than Kerry but were more divided than in 2004? The article states that more young voters are voting for Democrats and yet were more divided? Obama won a larger percentage of the vote Bush 2 or Clinton did in any of their elections and yet were more divided?

People voted Democrat in a big way all across the country in this election. Does this mean the country has had some huge shift towards liberalism? Probably not. Given the mess Bush and the Republicans have made of things it was not a question of whether the Democrats would win but rather by how much.

The Republicans have flourished in large measure by trying to divide us. Obama preached a message of coming together. Apparently Slate wasn't paying attention.

Great series of blog posts...sorry to see it come to an end.

Radiotone — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 00:16:55 GMT

I'll have to pick up your book to see if you give any predictions for where the big sort is going to lead us. Interesting stuff. Thanks.

From homogeneity we get "extremity"? Wha ...

fhdpjosc — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 13:44:34 GMT

"Homogeneity creates extremity—or, in the news of the day, a McCain rally"

Sorry folks. Homogenetiy (i.e. a white bread/white people nation) is boring and worthless. Not to mention a "cancer on the human race", as Miss Sontag put it.

Homogeneity is BAD. Diversity is GOOD. So why do you call a (good) diversity of political opinion that arises out of a (bad) homogeneity of political opinion a bad thing. Why do you call it "extremity"?

In Bakke v. Davis, the Supreme Court explicitly said that colleges could practice racial discrimination (or any other form of discrimination, really) in order to get a diversity of opinion and belief, in order to get heated arguments, new thoughts, new ideas. Universities are supposed to be polarized and angry and divisinve and diverse.

So why do call it "extreme".instead of "diverse"? Because no one is persuaded to return to unthinking homogeneity of thought? No one is persuaded to conform to the beliefs and attitudes of everyone else? Is that why we have diversity on campus? So everyone can argue for their freshman year, simmer for their sophomore and junior years, and all become centrists (actually leftists) by the time htey leave in their senior year?

Somehow I think Steve Sailer is right. "Diversity" to most white liberals means a bunch of different ethnic restaurants in their neighborhood and no REAL diversity. No diversity of thought and culture. Not African diversity, with genital mutilation, wife beating and polygamy. Not Arab diversity with Sunni versus Shia street battles, and forehead slashing. Not Mexican diversity with practices like "rapto" and Salvadoran diversity with machetes, MS-13 gangs and the ethnic cleansing of blacks from South Central LA.

Not quite the real problem

BenK — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 21:52:00 GMT

With men of the earth, everybody belongs to a tribe, tribes stick together, and they travel as units. Each tribe has an identity and tribes aren't trying to force each other to live like each other. Rather, they are trying to negotiate tough times without war over the resources. People know their own tribesmen, push comes to shove, have got their back. Men of the earth make sure it doesn't come to that.

In America, we have centralizers - conservative and liberal - who believe that everyone is an individual and that everyone has to have the same values, live the same way. 'Diversity' occurs only on the individual level and all the tribes should be functionally identical. All religions, races, creeds, genders, sexual choices, should all exist in every group and be 'at peace' - accepting, even excited, about the choices other people made.

For some of these centralizers, Intolerance is intolerable. Segregation is intolerable. Having role a person is born into is intolerable. Inherited wealth is intolerable. All sorts of things are intolerable in the name of tolerance.

For other of these centralizers, the conservatives, certain lifestyles and religions are intolerable. Many on the religious 'right' believe that God will judge them for what their neighbors are allowed to do - this makes the threat of their neighbors behavior serious. This sort of centralizer instinct drove the abolitionists into the Civil War. The secularist left now believes that sort of religion is intolerable.

The obvious answer would be to split into 'tribes' - communities - where conservatives can live at peace knowing that their neighbors are not bringing down God's wrath; but the liberals want to make sure these are broken up and the conservatives are re-educated. Meanwhile, the 'tolerance' they are preaching is unconstitutional intolerance, forces them to invade families and regulate small businesses and private associations.

There is great tension everywhere. Nobody is sure of a tribe at their back and there are no trustworthy men of the earth negotiating among tribes with clear authority within their own boundaries. Every supreme court case sweeps the land and threatens each hearth. Every election causes one side or the other great gnashing of teeth as they are potentially forced to live a way they abhor. Even basic morality is at odds between groups; when issues reach that deep, there is no compromise - without breaking into different groups and sorting things out among, say, communities and states.

Wait, you mean the founding fathers saw this sort of thing before and had a solution in mind? Wow. And we've been ignoring it this whole time? Geee...

Politician as Mediators vs Politicians as Partisans

Illinichief — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 18:12:32 GMT

In the past poiticians could mediate between competing interests because the stakes were lower. The government back in the 19th century was supposed to be a neutral referee, merely reflecting the values of society, and cost the individual less in terms of taxes and surrendered freedom. The more government is used a force to remake society according to the vision of the majority, the more the minority has a cause to be partisan; the more laws and regulations seem to be aimed at particular groups, communities and regions, the more partisan those on the receiving end will be; the more taxes appear to be extracted from some individuals and groups in order to subsidize other individuals and groups, the more partisan opposition will arise. If you want to reduce partisanship in politics, reduce the scope of government.

Moving and overlapping communities

Specular — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 16:22:42 GMT

I really enjoy The Big Sort, but lately, I feel as if it's reached the point of gloominess: America is entrenched in partisanship and we have no commonality. But the article on moving shows that because America is a migratory country, the self-segregation along interest/political lines is temporary. Red states are becoming blue, blue counties going red. Wal-Mart shoppers are moving to Target communities. We may pick a neighborhood because it mirrors our own values, but inevitably, somebody will come along who only reflects some of those values and change the sort.

As well, we exist in a large number of overlapping communities. I have several communities of friends, each with a different character. I have multiple online communities I participate, reflecting different interests and with little social or political cohesion between them.

In the most recent Big Sort, Bill moved away from the hard data that has made so many posts insightful. Is that because the extreme self-segregation implied there isn't found in the data, but in anecdotes?

Undecided? Videos to help you decide.

cptnbob — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 13:18:27 GMT

Here are a few videos I made to help people out with their vote... some bits and pieces that aren't always brought up when talking about the election. Have a nice day at the polls!

McCain, Palin, and the religious right ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBgaNj_ifv0 )

The Animated Life of John McCain ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bc4wO4_nNb0 )

I'm one of those undecided voters

CiarandDenlane — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 01:03:16 GMT

and I heard that Mr. Bishop has written about us. I'm going to ask a neighbor to read the article for me and let me know what to think. If I didn't have the attention of a mayfly, I'd get back to you at that point.

They Beat Their Wives Too!

Slawrence5 — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 18:08:10 GMT

This highlights the difference between the approach taken by the right over the past 40 years and what intelligent thoughtful people wish for.

In dealing with crime, the intelligent, thoughtful types realize that most of our crime is due to the failed war on drugs - combined with a deteriorating economic climate that makes drug dealing the only option for many. Legalize drugs when reasonable and when not, provide addicts with what they need, in a controlled environment.

Lacking the political will for that, the next best approach is effective enforcement. It is well established that crime rates are high where the police are over taxed and the rate of solving crimes is low. However, this raises the spectre of actually having to pay your share of taxes among society's right wing scum (these people aren't "conservatives")

What they demand is the same approach they use in raising their kids. Beat them and lock them in their room. Unfortunately, this may give them psychic satisfaction but it is a disaster as far as public policy.

However, these imbeciles just claim that the punishment isn't harsh enough. They are so easy to please that the RepubliCON politician have made their careers on placating them.

It's the LESBIAN Vote to Worry About!

SaveAmericaFromCommunism — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 01:05:06 GMT

Thousands of angry "dykes" (THEIR vulgar word, not mine!) have been agitating in public and private for years about their demands and "rights". Now, with final victory at hand for the radical homosexual agenda, they will be coming out of the woodwork and are clearly set on "recruiting" YOUR children for their perverse and concupiscient desires!!!!!!!!!!

It is one thing to be an adult who seeks to burn in Hell for all eternity due to his wickedness. Now, this pack of fiends seeks to seduce the youngest and most innocent, and they will do this through their votes for Barack HUSSEIN Obama in less than four weeks!

FACT: HUSEEIN Obama is a member of a radical left wing group who have sought for years to make perversity in the form of diversity the law of the land.

FACT: Homosexual "marriage" is supported by the ultra-left democratic fringe led by HUSSEIN Obama, and this is part of a Marxist program to undermine the family and leave us vulnerable to the New World Order of the anti-christ.

FACT: Gays and lesbians DO vote as a bloc, and co-ordinate their activities through on-line message boards and also through graffiti left at homosexual rendezvous points, such as public toilets and highway rest areas. While fornicating, the gay man or lesbian can read the writing on the toilet wall, in effect the "queer's CNN" as has been noted elsewhere.

Given "her" marching orders, a "dyke" then knows what to do, and that is whatever the far left masters of the DNC tell them to do. These are grave times for America, and the homosexual fifth column in this country is soon to sell us out to the socialists as part of their twisted plans. And then we will have only the return of Him to save us, and we'd better hope He hasn't forgotten us.

Financial Solution: Very low (2%) interest mortgages

Archarito — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 04:59:44 GMT

Since the country now owns the banks and lending agencies and the people own the country - WHERE ARE THE ULTRA LOW INTEREST MORTGAGES?

Red State Parents Spank More

ross9763 — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 17:09:50 GMT

I couldn't disagree with your article more. I can't even count the numerous times I have witnessed an African American parent (predominately Democratic voters) slap, spank, threaten, or yank their child's arms in a public place. I've seen it in Kmart, convenience stores, grocery stores, subways and parking lots. I can't imagine what they do behind closed doors. Your article was outright blasphemous and unfounded. Studies have shown that lower income (also predominately Democratic) parents discipline their children more fiercly than higher income parents. It's a proven fact. So stop trying to illicit ridiculous claims about the Republican party that are unfounded. You should know better....

Vermont x2

Tomcat710 — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 15:02:57 GMT

"In an earlier paper, Gosling found that those open to experience were more likely to live in California, Washington, Oregon, Vermont, Virginia, New York, Massachusetts, Vermont, Maryland, and Colorado."

I notice Vermont was listed twice, although it makes sense considering the amount of hippies. I feel like Vermont probably has at least twice the openness of most other states. Let's not forget, the screaming Howard Dean was a governor in Vermont, my home state.

Well of course voter fraud is not something to worry about

ProudInfidel — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 17:02:01 GMT

because it will benefit Democrats. So move on, nothing to see here.

Barack Obama Refuses Access 2 Orig. Birth Cert. - FORGERY?

Archarito — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 08:57:15 GMT

For months there has been questions about Barack Obama's Birth Certificate AND WHETHER IT IS A FORGERY or not.

Three forensic document analysts examined it and all three came to the conclusion that it is a sophisticated forgery.

FactCheck.org; an organization that is owned by the Annenberg Foundation which had both BILL AYERS and BARACK OBAMA on its BOARD of DIRECTORS has twice made the claim that they approved of the Birth Certificate supplied by the Obama campaign was legitimate. But they did not examine the birth certificate with the kind of analyses that the forensic document document examiners did! http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

However, their analyses did not include an analyses of the discrepancies raised by the forensic document examiners. http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12993.htm

Some blogs even claim the Obama campain gave FactCheck.org an original version of the birth certificate, but; why then would he refuse to give the courts an original copy of his birth certificate? http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78258

Another conclusive point is self evident from the forged birth certificate on its face. http://lamecherry.blogspot.com/2008/08/proof-barack-obama-birth-certificate-is.html

VOTE for HONESTY, TRUTH, INTEGRITY and a GENUINE AMERICAN CITIZEN.

VOTE FOR AND ELECT McCAIN/PALIN 2008

Running a campaign is not like building a church.

HAP — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 17:19:02 GMT

That was an interesting post, Bill.

Bill: These tactics aren't designed to "sell" people something new or different but to show that the product (a church, a new concoction of PowerBar, a candidate) embodies the community's beliefs and lifestyle.

Yes…and No. Yes on the community beliefs and lifestyle, No on the “no selling”. To build a church you do need to attract members, but as (or more) importantly you have to retain them. The church retains members by providing activities, social functions, and support in time of need, as well as many other types of things (not to leave out worship and music, music, music) that provide opportunities to express the community's beliefs and lifestyle. Quite frankly, that’s how they attract folks also. The Mormon church is an excellent model. Activities and support galore, coupled with teaching and indoctrination (and I don’t mean that derogatorily).

I have been to the Saddleback Church, several acquantances attend on a steady basis and they love it there. I have heard Pastor Rick speak at a men’s conference. (And… Saddleback Valley, South Orange County for that matter, is filled to overflowing with Saddleback “Sams and Samettes”). It’s helpful, Bill, to think of churches as service based businesses; “marketing” for new members entails “selling” those services. These are the type of services provided by Saddleback. “40 Days of Love” that sounds pretty cool. To build a church, much less a MegaChurch, you cannot over-promise and under-deliver; Saddleback Church delivers.

Bill: Neighbors witnessing to neighbors is a marketing technique suited to Americans, who are increasingly sequestering themselves in communities, churches, and clubs with those who share similar ways of life and politics

I agree with that statement wholeheartedly. Word of mouth is the best advertising, I believe that, as well. But a campaign, even a long protracted one has a definitive ending date; in this case the 4th. Both parties are hopeful, I’m sure, they will have retention of party members…yet everything leads to that one ending point.

So no Bill, I disagree just mildly, running a campaign is not like building a church. Running a campaign is like a good old fashioned grassroots promotion for a tent revival meeting, on steriods, and on a national scale. (It’s also like promoting a rave the same way).

As to this Bill: Self-government, however, is the opposite of self-love. Democracy is about meeting and coming to terms with people who look, talk, believe, and think differently from us. Government might work better if that democratic exercise began for voters during the campaign rather than the day after inauguration.

I agree in a “perfect world” type of sense.

Obama: "Rev Wright Represents 'Best' Church Has To Offer"

Archarito — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 04:04:31 GMT

"Reverend Wright - my pastor who I speak about in the chapter in the book - I think represents the best of what the black church has to offer."

Watch the video http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=210333

churches are less politically segregated than elite schools

Archae86 — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 18:12:48 GMT

The churches created over the last three decades have become some of the most politically segregated institutions in the country, a result of an organizing strategy built on the intentional molding of a "homogenous unit."

Unless I have missed something, graduate schools in general, and coastal elite ones in particular, are rather a lot more politically segregated than are the churches in question.

I think the justifications for this in the case of churches are far better than in the case of graduate school faculties. Talk about like seeking like!

And for the churches, narrow focus on a particular sort of megachurch misses the long truth that we have a vast diversity of church communities in the United States. Far more diverse in almost every dimension than the communities of the graduate schools.

As a student in early 70s Boston, I could attend services at Church of the Advent with one fraternity brother that had glorious church music of centuries ago, High Episcopal rites of service, and a remarkably thoughtful homily about five minutes long on which the rector spent an hour of preparation time per minute. Or I could get off the subway at a different stop, and attend a classic Baptist service with a different fraternity brother, with an utterly different aspect.

Unsorted in Albuquerque, and happily so.

The only politically correct stereotypes are political ones

moodyguppy — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 23:51:57 GMT

Am I conservative or liberal?

I'm sitting in my horrendously cluttered office in San Francisco. There are 2 macs, 3 degrees (two of them from "top 10" universities), 3 musical instruments, 4 disgusting coffee cups, ~~a rancid bit of pie~~ (yum!, pie!), pictures of me and my family in several different countries, about 500 CDs and around 1000 books, including Foucault and 30+ travel books...

Yet most of my family and friends would call me a conservative. At the state/national level I nearly always vote republican.

Why must we see this offensive, self-serving, self-aggrandizing "research", constructed by liberals, for liberals, demonstrating for once and all how liberals are just plain smarter, better and sexier than conservatives?

You would be tarred and feathered for even asking these kinds of questions about Jews, or African-Americans, or gay people (much less answering those questions). But conservatives? We can be hunted from choppers lik!

I hope that one positive effect of an Obama presidency will be that liberals won't feel so powerless that they are compelled to resort to these kinds of artificial, pathetic ego-boosters.

PS- No on prop 8! So I disagree with Republican orthodoxy there... hmm, and Democrat orthodoxy too.

Does Gosling study reveal a Paradox?

Illinichief — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 14:55:08 GMT

If, as the Gosling study concludes, liberals are more individualistic and less conventional, and coservatives are more conventional and less individualistic, then why do liberal favor(and conservatives oppose) a policy of larger, more centalized government with a greater presence in society, and in the life of every individual? Even if one assumes that, as liberals like to claim, more government will be completely beneficial, wont more government almost inevitably lead to more regimentation in our society? Why do liberals favor government imposed regimentation, but oppose non-governmental social conventions?(And vice-versa for conservatives) Is this the basic Paradox of American politics, or does the Gosling study merely confuse temperamental liberalism and conservatism with political Liberalism and Conservatism?

Puleeze

lucia29 — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 23:45:19 GMT

I'm sorry, how sad is this. This man looks in dorm rooms and determines that people are one way or another? I must say then I must be an anathema. I am somewhat conservtive, and artist, who has visited 30 countries, and has an extensive library. I live in MA. Although that will change as soon as I can make it. Somewhere warn and tropical. It sounds like someone just wants liberals to be one way, what he values as good; after all creativity must be better than neatness; and those he doesn't like must be the other way. I've seen alot and all I can say is there is only one kind of people, and that's people. The minute you start separating people into us and them you dehumanize all of us. All men fall short of the glory of God period.