# Is there more anti-black racism among white Republicans than white Democrats? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 1, 2006, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-more-anti-black-racism-among-white-republicans-than-white-democrats/342562 "2006-02-01T20:13:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2006, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-more-anti-black-racism-among-white-republicans-than-white-democrats/342562/21 "2006-02-02T15:04:32Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > Now, I can confidently state that a liberal is less likely to be racist by virtue of being a liberal. But many liberals, in their anxiety or eagerness not to appear racist, overcompensate and often end up being unfair against whites. And it is painfully obvious that many liberals have an anti-white, anti-Western and anti-Christian bias in their way of thinking. ---
**Author:** ![Crotalus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crotalus/32/41_2.png) [@Crotalus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crotalus)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2006, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-more-anti-black-racism-among-white-republicans-than-white-democrats/342562/22 "2006-02-02T15:14:47Z")
I can only offer my personal experiences. I spent the first 46 years of my life in Baltimore, Maryland, which was and is predominantly Democrat. During my early adult years, primarily due to “white flight”, African-Americans became a majority in Baltimore. I now live in southern Ohio, which tends to vote Republican. The county I live in is 92% white. My personal experience with anti-black racism has been that it is more associated with socio-economic class than political party. While there is some correlation between socio-economic class and political party, it’s not absolute. In my experience, I have found evidence of racist attitudes to be more common among whites who were poorer, and less common among those who were better off, without regard to political party. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2006, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-more-anti-black-racism-among-white-republicans-than-white-democrats/342562/23 "2006-02-02T15:39:14Z")
> [@Metacom](#): > > Allan Bloom. > > The argument that turned me off of affirmative action is that it’s ultimately harmful to blacks because it perpetuates the perception of them as being dumber then whites. A perception only held by racist, and bigots. Why is the program’s utility secondary to whether it reinforces stereotypes in the minds of idiots? Do you really think people who think Blacks are generally dumber than Whites will change their minds if they got rid of AA? It exists as a red herring for people like that, and it’s up to rational people to not parrot these ridiculous arguments. I don’t mind if you disagree with AA, just have some rational basis for doing so. > [@Metacom](#): > > By lowering academic standards for blacks, blacks are put forth into the workforce that actually _are_ less well educated and intelligent then whites. Bullshit. Education and intelligence are two completely different things. Show me some evidence that Black people are less intelligent. People value formal education too much in this country. If AA really created large numbers of inferior Black people in the workforce, then each individual unqualified black person will find themselves unemployed. > [@Metacom](#): > > \*\*A RACIST \*\* comparing a black college graduate and a white college graduate could, with some knowledge of their backgrounds, reasonably infer that the white graduate is smarter because the white graduate had to meet higher standards. (My editing) No, you could not do so logically. First, Blacks have not been the primary beneficiaries of AA (read the thread), so assuming a random Black person benefited is faulty in the first place. Second, education does not equal smartness/intelligence. Third, a degree doesn’t really signify that you’ve really _learned_ anything. A white college student, once in school, doesn’t generally have to meet higher standards. > [@Metacom](#): > > Instead of lowering standards for blacks–which ultimately is what affirmative action is. No, it’s not. That your editorializing. It’s not about lowering standards. Funny, I see no mention of women, Hispanics, or any other group that benefits from AA. Why is that? Please think about what you write, rather than parroting irrational stuff with racist undertones. ---
**Author:** ![UnwrittenNocturne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/6de8d8/32.png) [@UnwrittenNocturne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UnwrittenNocturne)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2006, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-more-anti-black-racism-among-white-republicans-than-white-democrats/342562/24 "2006-02-02T16:49:19Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > Quite a few people who were of voting age in the 60s are still around, and it’s not at all outlandish to think that many of them passed their racist values on to their kids. I’m going to comment on this with my own, obviously anecdotal, experiences. I live in the Deep South. I’m also an immigrant from Aotearoa/New Zealand. Culture shock. My inlaws are staunchly republican. And casually, viciously, racist. My wife’s grandparents are staunchly democrat. And casually, viciously, racist. They all made every effort to pass that attitude down to their children. I’ve noticed that the racism is stronger in the republican contingent. But it is definitely still there with a lot of democrats as well. The apartment complex I live in has a very high number of frat/sorority members. Without fail I see and hear racism from them - along with the “W” stickers. I see and hear a lot less of it from the democrats of college age. There are nowhere near as many younger people in this town who are democrats. Most are firmly republican, and when questioned will tell you that they are because their parents are. That they also learned the racism from their parents. It gets passed down. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2006, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-more-anti-black-racism-among-white-republicans-than-white-democrats/342562/25 "2006-02-02T17:27:11Z")
John Mace and Metacom pretty much said what I was going too…i.e. its the Democrats that have the more subtle and insidious anti-black racism by the fact that they assume blacks are inferior and in need of a helping hand because they can’t do anything on their own without the great white fathers to help em up. While the Republicans wear their racism on their sleeves so to speak. If we are going to paint in ridiculously broad brush strokes… Personally I think that its an assine question to ask anyway either way as ‘racism’ varies from person to person within the parties…and the only reason someone would ask would be to feel all smug that the Democrats/Republicans are ‘racist’ or ‘more racist’ than whichever party YOU happen to be associated with. > [@brickbacon](#): > > Do you really think people who think Blacks are generally dumber than Whites will change their minds if they got rid of AA? What makes you think they won’t? Besides, we are talking about a generational problem here as well as a PERCEPTION issue. Perhaps the folks who look down at black people in the 80’s for all the AA stuff won’t change their minds at this point…but maybe people in 2020 will. Attitudes in the US are constantly shifting on the issue of race, but programs like this tend to keep the racist fires burning more so than they otherwise would…IMHO. > [@brickbacon](#): > > Show me some evidence that Black people are less intelligent. Um…the point is that Black people AREN’T less intelligent. So why do liberal types think that they can only succeed if they are helped out…otherwise they will be poor and helpless forever? The very programs designed to ‘help’ them are a subtle slight on their abilities…and also a leash to keep them down. And before you get all high and mighty on me recall that hispanics don’t exactly have it easy here…especially immigrant hispanics coming from Mexico. One of the primary reason I have resented ‘liberals’ is that in discussions with them I alway caught the same subtle ‘racism’ in their attitudes about hispanics as toward blacks…i.e. we are too stupid and downtrodden to help ourselves and we should be grateful to them for tossing us some crumbs so we can exist. Otherwise we would _insert some dire fate worse than death_. > [@brickbacon](#): > > It’s not about lowering standards. Funny, I see no mention of women, Hispanics, or any other group that benefits from AA. Because of the thread title. Here, let me help: Is there more **anti-black** racism among white Republicans than white Democrats? The OP wants to narrowly talk about ‘anti-black racism’. Certainly we could talk about AA helping out other minority groups and women. Thats all part of the same mind set though…women and minorities can’t help themselves so they are beholden to the great white fathers to help em out. Unfortunately the ‘help’ doesn’t seem to actually ‘help’ much…and from my perspective looks more like chains than a helping hand. YMMV and all that but I have real flesh and blood friends and family who have received that ‘help’…and are still on it to this day because its a never ending cycle. And a pretty degrading cycle it is IMHO. -XT ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2006, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-more-anti-black-racism-among-white-republicans-than-white-democrats/342562/26 "2006-02-02T17:29:55Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > But many liberals, in their anxiety or eagerness not to appear racist, overcompensate and often end up being unfair against whites. And it is painfully obvious that many liberals have an anti-white, anti-Western and anti-Christian bias in their way of thinking. Possibly. Arguably. But please bear in mind that **this thread is not about that, Og dammit!!!** ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2006, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-more-anti-black-racism-among-white-republicans-than-white-democrats/342562/27 "2006-02-02T18:03:18Z")
Uh, aren’t y’all puttin’ the cart before the horse here? Isn’t it necessary to first show that some kinda correlation actually exists between one’s position along the policital spectrum and his/her racist tendencies? If we can’t demonstrate a correlation of any kind, then it’s impossible to quantify it. Which is what this thread is asking. I think. Quite frankly, I don’t think it’s gonna be possible to find a correlation. A person’s political leaning isn’t necessarily defined by his/her racist tendencies, but that’s the answer this question must seek. The only way outta this indeterminate position that I can see, is through establishment of a self-fulfilling hypothesis. That is, by defining certain acts and beliefs of a person to be either more or less racist. Those persons will then be assigned a position left or right on the political spectrum in accordance their acts and beliefs about color. The problem then being, that you’re using the quality you want to measure (racist tendencies) as the means of assigning the person’s point on the political spectrum. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2006, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-more-anti-black-racism-among-white-republicans-than-white-democrats/342562/28 "2006-02-02T18:16:56Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > But many liberals, in their anxiety or eagerness not to appear racist, overcompensate and often end up being unfair against whites. And it is painfully obvious that many liberals have an anti-white, anti-Western and anti-Christian bias in their way of thinking. If by “unfair” you mean “unwilling to perpetuate the social structures that lead to white supremacy” then by golly, we’re in agreement! ---
**Author:** ![Dob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b2d939/32.png) [@Dob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dob)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2006, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-more-anti-black-racism-among-white-republicans-than-white-democrats/342562/29 "2006-02-02T18:27:46Z")
> [@](#): > > anti-black racism I dont get this debate. Anti-black racism means you are against black racisim. So are you asking if Republicans more against black racism than Democrats? Im confused. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2006, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-more-anti-black-racism-among-white-republicans-than-white-democrats/342562/30 "2006-02-02T18:41:46Z")
> [@Dob](#): > > I dont get this debate. Anti-black racism means you are against black racisim. So are you asking if Republicans more against black racism than Democrats? Im confused. I believe the OP meant it as ‘Anti-black \ racism’…or perhaps Anti-black, racism. I.e. BG wanted to talk about a very narrow type of racism…anti-black…that he thinks there is evidence that Republicans are more guilty of than Democrats. So he started a thread in order to continue to pound the ‘Republicans are racist!’ podium and score some perceived points. -XT ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2006, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-more-anti-black-racism-among-white-republicans-than-white-democrats/342562/31 "2006-02-02T18:54:13Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > What makes you think they won’t? Because it’s not a causal relationship, it’s rationalizing. People don’t need reasons to hold irrational beliefs. They will just find another “reason” to believe what they believe. People said the same things about Black people before AA, and they will say similar things after it’s gone. It’s like blaming Jodie Foster for Reagan getting shot. > [@xtisme](#): > > Besides, we are talking about a generational problem here as well as a PERCEPTION issue. The perception of racists maybe. I personally don’t feel as though that should heavily factor into decision made for the everyone’s well being. > [@xtisme](#): > > Perhaps the folks who look down at black people in the 80’s for all the AA stuff won’t change their minds at this point…but maybe people in 2020 will. Attitudes in the US are constantly shifting on the issue of race, but programs like this tend to keep the racist fires burning more so than they otherwise would…IMHO. I disagree. You keep attributing rational justification to people who are acting irrationally. Programs like AA don’t cause racism, nor do they keep the fires burning. Racist people do that. If it isn’t AA, it’s rap music, or something else. > [@xtisme](#): > > Um…the point is that Black people AREN’T less intelligent. That’s the truth of the matter, but you’ve entirely missed the point. The comment was a direct response to this (my bolding): > [@Metacom](#): > > Someone comparing a black college graduate and a white college graduate could, with some knowledge of their backgrounds, **reasonably infer that the white graduate is smarter** because the white graduate had to meet higher standards. It is not reasonable. If anyone things this is a reasonable thing to do, then are in tacit agreement with the sentiment that Blacks aren’t generally as smart/intelligent as whites. That’s why it needed to be said. Something as obvious as that has been ignored by many people. > [@xtisme](#): > > So why do liberal types think that they can only succeed if they are helped out…otherwise they will be poor and helpless forever? Because most “liberal types” don’t think that. Many see it as leveling the playing field rather than tilting it in anyone’s favor. > [@xtisme](#): > > The very programs designed to ‘help’ them are a subtle slight on their abilities…and also a leash to keep them down. In your opinion. In the minds of others, it is a means of mitigating the effects of a rigged system. > [@xtisme](#): > > And before you get all high and mighty on me recall that hispanics don’t exactly have it easy here…especially immigrant hispanics coming from Mexico. High and mighty? I’d never call you a condescending jerk, but you can sound like one sometimes. I don’t think I’d even mentioned I’m Black in this thread, let alone argue that we’ve had it worse. So before _you_ start acting like a jerk, just realize that rational, honest people are only advocating what they think will work best. > [@xtisme](#): > > One of the primary reason I have resented ‘liberals’ is that in discussions with them I alway caught the same subtle ‘racism’ in their attitudes about hispanics as toward blacks…i.e. we are too stupid and downtrodden to help ourselves and we should be grateful to them for tossing us some crumbs so we can exist. Otherwise we would _insert some dire fate worse than death_. You are entitled to your opinion, but I don’t see how you think the conservatives have a more enlightened opinion. For every liberal like you describe, there is a conservative that wants to send all the Mexicans (read: Hispanics) back to Mexico, and shoot all the ones who cross illegally. Not saying one is necessarily better than the other, but lets not assume any group in America is free of racism and condescension. > [@xtisme](#): > > Because of the thread title. Here, let me help: Is there more **anti-black** racism among white Republicans than white Democrats? Where in the title does it say, “Metacom’s feeling on Affirmative Action”. That’s what I got, and it has nothing to do with the thread. He was asked a direct question in post #15 by **Furt**. That was his response. It was certainly beyond the scope of the OP, and was neither bound by, nor germane to the preceding discussion. So, to limit his response about AA to how it’s related to Black people is unfair, and ironically, the same tactic used by many politicians to appeal to racists. Sorry, but I’m not gonna let that slide. > [@xtisme](#): > > The OP wants to narrowly talk about ‘anti-black racism’. Certainly we could talk about AA helping out other minority groups and women. Thats all part of the same mind set though…women and minorities can’t help themselves so they are beholden to the great white fathers to help em out. Unfortunately the ‘help’ doesn’t seem to actually ‘help’ much…and from my perspective looks more like chains than a helping hand. The comment I responded to had nothing to do with the OP. There was no reason for him/her to curtail his answer, and/or exclude discussion about other groups. > [@xtisme](#): > > YMMV and all that but I have real flesh and blood friends and family who have received that ‘help’…and are still on it to this day because its a never ending cycle. And a pretty degrading cycle it is IMHO. > > -XT That’s fine, but save it for another thread. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2006, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-more-anti-black-racism-among-white-republicans-than-white-democrats/342562/32 "2006-02-02T19:24:53Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Here, let me help: Is there more **anti-black** racism among white Republicans than white Democrats? The OP wants to narrowly talk about ‘anti-black racism’. Certainly we could talk about AA helping out other minority groups and women. It’s pretty disingenous to pretend that black people don’t get a disproportionate amount of attention when it comes to Affirmative Action. All one has to do is look at all the AA threads on this board and the truth is blatantly obvious. The place where I work is heavily populated with women who have risen through the ranks through AA. They are almost all white. [Carlos Mencia’s voice] Oh, but **you with the face** , they actually _deserved_ those jobs. So it’s not bad! [/CM voice] Right, whatever. People tend to give white women more of the benefit of the doubt than they do blacks. A white woman isn’t seen as a AA beneficiary first and foremost. We assume that she is qualified. Blacks do not get that benefit of the doubt. And it’s not because of AA. It’s because of a long history of not receiving the benefit of the doubt. To pretend otherwise is to turn a blind eye to history. ---
**Author:** ![AFAIKnow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a6a055/32.png) [@AFAIKnow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AFAIKnow)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2006, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-more-anti-black-racism-among-white-republicans-than-white-democrats/342562/33 "2006-02-02T19:31:09Z")
> [@you with the face](#): > > It’s pretty disingenous to pretend that black people don’t get a disproportionate amount of attention when it comes to Affirmative Action. All one has to do is look at all the AA threads on this board and the truth is blatantly obvious. > > The place where I work is heavily populated with women who have risen through the ranks through AA. They are almost all white. > > [Carlos Mencia’s voice] > Oh, but **you with the face** , they actually _deserved_ those jobs. So it’s not bad! > [/CM voice] > > Right, whatever. People tend to give white women more of the benefit of the doubt than they do blacks. A white woman isn’t seen as a AA beneficiary first and foremost. We assume that she is qualified. > > Blacks do not get that benefit of the doubt. And it’s not because of AA. It’s because of a long history of not receiving the benefit of the doubt. To pretend otherwise is to turn a blind eye to history. The debate is race. Not sex. If you want to debate how AAdiscriminates against males, go for it. If you are saying that the women get advantage in AA because they are white, then I call bullshit. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2006, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-more-anti-black-racism-among-white-republicans-than-white-democrats/342562/34 "2006-02-02T19:35:01Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > I believe the OP meant it as ‘Anti-black \ racism’…or perhaps Anti-black, racism. I.e. BG wanted to talk about a very narrow type of racism…anti-black…that he thinks there is evidence that Republicans are more guilty of than Democrats. So he started a thread in order to continue to pound the ‘Republicans are racist!’ podium and score some perceived points. > > -XT Of course, there no WAAAAY that Republicans could objecitvely be more racist than Dems. No, never, not even with all that historical evidence and so forth. Gimme a fucking break, xtisme! ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2006, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-more-anti-black-racism-among-white-republicans-than-white-democrats/342562/35 "2006-02-02T20:03:16Z")
> [@UncleBeer](#): > > Uh, aren’t y’all puttin’ the cart before the horse here? Isn’t it necessary to first show that some kinda correlation actually exists between one’s position along the policital spectrum and his/her racist tendencies? No kidding. > [@brickbacon](#): > > If AA really created large numbers of inferior Black people in the workforce, then each individual unqualified black person will find themselves unemployed. Well, that is more or less what AA is designed to prevent, isn’t it? The idea of AA is to provide some benefit to an individual if he belongs to certain groups, over some equally well-qualified candidate who does not. > [@brickbacon](#): > > Programs like AA don’t cause racism, nor do they keep the fires burning. Racist people do that. I can see how AA can create racism. Take some guy with minimal contact with black folks (for example). He has been taught all the liberal pieties about equality between the races, and black people are the same as anyone else, and so on. Then he goes to some elite college, or works in some industry that implements AA. And some significant proportion of the blacks he encounters there would not be in that college or that industry except for AA. And therefore some (not all, some) of them will tend to be relatively less well-qualified for their position than the non-blacks who did not receive AA as a benefit. They’re overmatched, in other words. Not necessarily failures, but not proportionately represented among the top performers, and disproportionately represented among the bottom half. It is going to be difficult to overcome the perception that blacks don’t compare well to non-blacks, all other things being equal. Not that this is necessarily a true perception, but it can be one that is reinforced by daily experience. If the other students in your class who got extra diversity points on their applications tend to be the ones who scrape by with Cs and Ds, while the Asians and whites seem to make up all the top tenners, it is going to be hard to overcome the notion that blacks really can’t be expected to make it on their own. A benign form of racism, but racism all the same. Thomas Sowell talks about this phenomenon. Black students are far more likely to flunk out of college, or take longer than four years for their undergraduate degrees, than non-blacks. This is, in part, due to AA leading them to be placed at top level schools when the average state college might be a better fit for a student, based only on non-diversity related reasons. And when the rubber meets the road, and some naive college student looks around himself and sees that a noticeable percentage of his fellow students, who have been given special breaks to get into college and _still_ have trouble with the work, and no response besides “racist!” when the subject comes up, AA has not done its thing to combat racism. Just the opposite, in fact. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2006, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-more-anti-black-racism-among-white-republicans-than-white-democrats/342562/36 "2006-02-02T20:23:19Z")
This is an interesting question. My first inclination is to think of the archetypal racist, ala _Mississippi Burning_, and to equate racism and Republicans that way. However, I do agree with **Mr. Moto** , that racism is evident in many places. Boston, for example, is supposed to be a very Democratic city, yet one would have to be fairly ignorant to suggest that it is without racism. I’m sure it’s quite a bit more complicated than a simple correlation between political party and racism. I am not a social psychologist, but I did a quick spin around the literature on the topic. There appears to have been somewhat of an evolution in the literature on personality and racism. Authoritarianism was studied in regards to racism, and evidence suggested that right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) in particular was associated with racism (Altemeyer, 1996). Right wing authoritarianism was defined as follows: > [@Crowson](#): > > According to Altemeyer (1996), right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) comprises three highly interrelated sets of attitudes: authoritarian submission (submission to individuals or groups deemed as holding legitimate authority in society), authoritarian aggression (aggressiveness, which is believed to be sanctioned by legitimate authorities, directed against unconventional individuals or groups), and conventionalism (a willingness to support existing conventions and standards as endorsed by societal authorities). Researchers have demonstrated that individuals who score high on RWA also tend to score low on measures of openness to experience (Butler, 2000; Heaven & Bucci, 2001) and moral judgment development (Van Ijzendoorn, 1989) and higher on measures of need for cognitive closure (Van Hiel, Pandelaere, & Duriez, 2004) and value dimensions of tradition, conformity, security, and orthodoxy (Duriez & Van Hiel, 2002) than do persons scoring low on RWA. Other researchers (Ekehammar & Akrami, 2003) examined a widely used model of personality, the Five Factor model (Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness) measured by the NEO-PI, to examine prejudice. They found Oppenness to Experience and Agreeableness to be strongly and inversely associated with prejudice > [@Ekehammar & Akrami](#): > > In conclusion, when studying simple correlations, it seems as if Agreeableness and Openness to experience are those single Big Five factors most closely associated with generalized prejudice. This is not unexpected. Openness to Experience, for example, includes components that have to do with nonconformity and unconventionality (cf. John & Srivastava, 1999), which is also the interpretation of this factor in some European samples (De Raad, Perugini, Hrebickova, & Szarota, 1998). Further, Openness to Experience has been shown to be inversely related to authoritarianism (McCrae & Costa, 1997; Peterson et al., 1997; Trapnell, 1994) and positively related to liberal social and political values (McCrae, 1996; Van Hiel et al., 2000). All these characteristics of Openness to Experience would predict a negative relation to prejudice. Also, Agreeableness, as the opposite of antagonism, includes components such as tender-mindedness and altruism (cf. John & Srivastava, 1999) as well as non-hostility, empathy, and prosocial behavior (cf. Graziano & Eisenberg, 1997), which could be expected to relate negatively to prejudice as well. In a subsequent paper, these authors (Ekehammar, Akrami, Gylje & Zakrisson, 2004) examined a more complex model including the five factor model, RWA and another construct, Social Dominance Orientation, which has also been linked to racism. According to Crowson, DeBacker & Thoma (2005): > [@Crowson et al.](#): > > SDO refers to an ‘‘attitudinal orientation toward intergroup relations’’ (Pratto et al., 1994, p. 742) in which one holds a preference for hierarchical and non-egalitarian social systems (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Individuals scoring high on this factor tend to perceive the world in competitive terms (Duckitt, 2001), ‘‘favor hierarchy-enhancing ideologies and policies’’ (Pratto et al., 1994, p. 742), and prefer to be the ones who dominate others (Altemeyer, 1998). Studies indicate that SDO is positively correlated with support for violations of civil rights, endorsement of war as a way of resolving international conflicts, nationalism (Pratto et al., 1994), beliefs in racial superiority (Sidanius & Liu, 1992), and racial and ethnic prejudice (Altemeyer, 1998). Ekehamar et al (2004) found that after including RWA and SDO in the model, the effects for the Big Five personality factors were indirectly linked to prejudice, with Extraversion, Openness to Experience and Conscientiousness linked to RWA and RWA linked to prejudice, and with Agreeableness linked to SDO, and SDO to prejudice. A primary question for our debate here is thus: How does RWA relate to political conservatism? Studies suggest that the correlation is moderate (Crowson, Thoma & Hestevold, 2005) to high (Bouchard et al., 2003). Intriguing to me was the finding of a strong genetic heritability for conservatism found in the latter study (a moderately sized sample of twins reared apart), which the authors note is consistent with two other such studies. From the evidence, it would seem to me that one cannot say that Republicans are particularly racist, but that personality traits which are at least moderately correlated with conservatism are quite robust in their links to racism. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2006, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-more-anti-black-racism-among-white-republicans-than-white-democrats/342562/37 "2006-02-02T21:07:59Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Well, that is more or less what AA is designed to prevent, isn’t it? No, it was not designed primarily for this purpose. That’s what employee reviews and interviews are for. > [@Shodan](#): > > The idea of AA is to provide some benefit to an individual if he belongs to certain groups, over some equally well-qualified candidate who does not. No, it’s taking into account that fact that being a minority in a majority situation is, in many instances, a qualification that should be taken into account. > [@Shodan](#): > > Take some guy with minimal contact with black folks (for example). He has been taught all the liberal pieties about equality between the races, and black people are the same as anyone else, and so on. Since when are facts considered “liberal pieties”? Are you saying the “races” aren’t equal, or that blacks aren’t the same as anyone else? > [@Shodan](#): > > Then he goes to some elite college, or works in some industry that implements AA. And some significant proportion of the blacks he encounters there would not be in that college or that industry except for AA. How does he determine that the Blacks wouldn’t be there except for AA? He’s already made assumptions based on prejudice and bigotry. > [@Shodan](#): > > And therefore some (not all, some) of them will tend to be relatively less well-qualified for their position than the non-blacks who did not receive AA as a benefit. Really? Because they received lower grades, they will be worse at their job? Sometimes this is the case, but most of the time it’s not. Most people are trained specifically for the job they are doing. Being a “worse” student doesn’t necessarily mean they will be worse at their job. > [@Shodan](#): > > They’re overmatched, in other words. Not necessarily failures, but not proportionately represented among the top performers, and disproportionately represented among the bottom half. It’s your hypothetical, so let’s assume this is true. > [@Shodan](#): > > It is going to be difficult to overcome the perception that blacks don’t compare well to non-blacks, all other things being equal. It’s only difficult for a person who harbors such beliefs anyway. When I see a trailer park full of poor white people, I don’t assume all white people are lazy. Why? Because majority groups aren’t generally defined by the behavior of others who look like them. Your hypothetical ultimately fails because you assume his perception has a basis in reality, and then you make a general statement about a whole group of people. Just because a bigot might find justification in AA to harbor racist views doesn’t mean it’s AA’s fault. > [@Shodan](#): > > Not that this is necessarily a true perception, but it can be one that is reinforced by daily experience. If the other students in your class who got extra diversity points on their applications tend to be the ones who scrape by with Cs and Ds, while the Asians and whites seem to make up all the top tenners, it is going to be hard to overcome the notion that blacks really can’t be expected to make it on their own. A benign form of racism, but racism all the same. Or, a rational person, knowing that race is a made-up construct , will find other reasons for the discrepancy. > [@Shodan](#): > > Thomas Sowell talks about this phenomenon. Black students are far more likely to flunk out of college, or take longer than four years for their undergraduate degrees, than non-blacks. Cite? I believe you, but I would like to see proof of this. > [@Shodan](#): > > This is, in part, due to AA leading them to be placed at top level schools when the average state college might be a better fit for a student, based only on non-diversity related reasons. Prove it. I think it’s because Blacks at top-tier schools face more racism, and thus find it harder to integrate and do well. Both are possible, but neither is proven. > [@Shodan](#): > > And when the rubber meets the road, and some naive college student looks around himself and sees that a noticeable percentage of his fellow students, who have been given special breaks to get into college and _still_ have trouble with the work, and no response besides “racist!” when the subject comes up, AA has not done its thing to combat racism. Just the opposite, in fact. > > Regards, > Shodan Who said AA is supposed to combat racism? It’s to create a level playing field, and provide women and minorities with the **opportunity** to succeed. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2006, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-more-anti-black-racism-among-white-republicans-than-white-democrats/342562/38 "2006-02-02T21:40:17Z")
> [@you with the face](#): > > Opponents of Affirmative Action commonly portray it as a “black program”, even though [white](http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/affirmaction.html#faq) women have benefited from it more than any other group. How often do we hear people calling AA a sexist program? It seems to me we’d be hearing that particular outcry a lot more often since a white man has a greater chance of “losing out” to a white woman than he does a black person. I’ll just repeat what has already been said: That may be true, but given that this thread is about anti-Black racism I can see why no one talks about the effect of AA on women, Latinos or overweight people. In the context of this thread, your statments are irrelavent, even if they are true. > [@](#): > > I have to say that the tendency of AA detractors to point their fingers at black people rather the group most likely to benefit from the program smells a lot like like anti-black bias to me. That’s really just a strawman. In this thread, no one is pointing fingers at anyone except the folks who support race based AA programs. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2006, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-more-anti-black-racism-among-white-republicans-than-white-democrats/342562/39 "2006-02-02T21:58:40Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I’ll just repeat what has already been said: That may be true, but given that this thread is about anti-Black racism I can see why no one talks about the effect of AA on women, Latinos or overweight people. In the context of this thread, your statments are irrelavent, even if they are true. It is not irrelevant. It’s an observation that follows the train of thought of the thread. It’s not a direct response to the OP but it is not a hijack, either. But maybe I should do a better job of making it clearer why it is relevant. So I’ll say this: More republicans are anti-AA than Democrats, and the reasons they give usually revolve around black people. The issue is usually framed in terms of racial discrimination (with blacks at the forefront) rather than gender discrimination (with white women in the forefront). So at least in this area, Republicans demonstrate more anti-black bias than Dems. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2006, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-more-anti-black-racism-among-white-republicans-than-white-democrats/342562/40 "2006-02-02T22:04:38Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > No, it was not designed primarily for this purpose. That’s what employee reviews and interviews are for. Employee reviews are designed to prevent unqualified blacks from being fired? I don’t think so. > [@](#): > > Since when are facts considered “liberal pieties”? Are you saying the “races” aren’t equal, or that blacks aren’t the same as anyone else? I am talking about a mindset that is (apparently) contradicted by experience. > [@](#): > > How does he determine that the Blacks wouldn’t be there except for AA? He’s already made assumptions based on prejudice and bigotry. I am assuming that the AA policies at our theoretical college are a matter of public record. Then he is presented with a phenomenom - blacks (in his perception) tend to do less well than whites at the same school, with the same teachers, and after the school has taken steps to give them special breaks. And the natural tendency is to think that there must be something to the notion on which AA is based - blacks (or other beneficiaries of AA) must not be up to the same standards as non-blacks. There is, in other words, no assumptions - our student is basing his ideas on his experience. And his experience is being distorted by AA. That is to say, all other things being equal, only those blacks with the same indications of success as non-blacks would be present in this school. Thus they would not be disproportionate in their relative lack of success. But all other things are not equal - AA has changed the basis on which students are admitted (for some students). > [@](#): > > Really? Because they received lower grades, they will be worse at their job? Sometimes this is the case, but most of the time it’s not. Most people are trained specifically for the job they are doing. Being a “worse” student doesn’t necessarily mean they will be worse at their job. Well, by that reasoning, higher education is unnecessary altogether - there is no proof that some high school drop out will be any worse at nuclear medicine than a graduate of an elite university. > [@](#): > > It’s only difficult for a person who harbors such beliefs anyway. No, I don’t think so. It is difficult to discount one’s own experience. Since AA is predicated, at least in part, on the idea that blacks and other selected minorities cannot be expected to succeed on the same basis as other groups, and our hypothetical student’s experience reinforces that notion, then the impulse is going to be strong to accept this as a working hypothesis. > [@](#): > > Your hypothetical ultimately fails because you assume his perception has a basis in reality, and then you make a general statement about a whole group of people. Just because a bigot might find justification in AA to harbor racist views doesn’t mean it’s AA’s fault. We have already assumed that he wasn’t a bigot to start with. One of the problems of AA is that it can produce racism. And his perception does have a basis in reality - his reality, his experience. He sees blacks failing even after getting special benefits. This tends to reinforce the notion that AA uses as its rationale. > [@](#): > > Cite? I believe you, but I would like to see proof of this. I will see what I can do. > [@](#): > > Who said AA is supposed to combat racism? It’s to create a level playing field, and provide women and minorities with the **opportunity** to succeed. But the problem is the extent to which AA provides a level playing field, and provides opportunities, and the selected minorities _still_ fail. And that fosters racism, because AA is founded in part on racist beliefs. Regards, Shodan [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-more-anti-black-racism-among-white-republicans-than-white-democrats/342562.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-more-anti-black-racism-among-white-republicans-than-white-democrats/342562.md?page=3)