« Former (or perhaps still current?) Honduran abassador to U.S. speaks | Main | Sarah Palin in Vanity Fair »

July 02, 2009

Comments

"the majority of Jews strongly oppose affirmative action"

I think "strongly" is really, really overstating it. Most Jews, like most white Americans, probably do oppose affirmative action as unfair on an abstract level but it's not a hot button issue for them because it doesn't affect their lives 99% of the time. Jews aren't trying to get promoted to captain of the fire-department. There's no affirmative action at Goldman Sachs, Skadden Arps, or Blackstone (maybe they pretend to the outside world there is, but trust me, there really isn't). Rabid opponents of affirmative action think there's a conspiracy to screw the middle class - but if there is, it's not conscious - truth is, most of us just don't think about it. If you are an educated white person born into an affluent family, affirmative action will never affect you. I personally don't really care that much one way or the other - I would never vote for a candidate solely based on his position on AA, seems like there are a hundred issues out there that are more important in my life. The problem with AA is the problem with most benefits handed out by the government - the people who get the benefit really really care and spend a lot of energy fighting for it. The people who get screwed by the program mostly don't care until they get screwed and by then it's too late. But I don't see how AA is any worse morally than corporate welfare, farm subsidies, legacy admissions or any of the other hundreds of ways connected people get ahead of those who aren't connected. Probably my cynical Russian view on the matter.

You're both wrong, and so is Kevin McDonald (who I agree is a rabid anti-Semite).

The GSS data is ... often flawed. Using the webtool is useless, it does not give you series data over time, and that is the critical aspect. You often find observations in the 6-7 range for say, White men aged 55. So it's non-random to say the least (given small sample sizes at the most atomic). There's no discussion of methodology, including year to year and selecting respondents.

That being said, Jews are very, very, VERY liberal. They are liberal, in the way most feminized, Yuppie, SWPL Whites are liberal. Upper income people drift to liberalism, including leveraging the government for SWPL preferences (expensive real estate, immigration to support cheap gardeners and nannies, etc.) and Jews are no different.

What's changed over time was the old generation (Jack Kirby, creator of Captain America, or Louis Mayer of MGM, famously "born" on the Fourth of July) to that of SWPL green-ism, a secular religion worshipping the planet replacing American Patriotism. Which is merely the function of Jews being affected by SWPL yuppiedom along with Italian/Polish Catholics, WASPs, etc.

A few Jews are prominent in SWPL leftism, and so arouse the ire of anti-Semites, who overlook the vast foot soldier and leadership representation of Catholics and WASPs in say, Greenpeace, Heal the Bay, or other SWPL endeavors.

Whiskey gave a similar comment at my blog, and I responded there:
http://entitledtoanopinion.wordpress.com/2009/05/23/womens-attitudes-towards-immigration/#comment-3773

He is wrong to say that you cannot get data over time. There is a YEAR variable for the year the survey is given. I didn't bother to break down my results by it though. I might also have a different definition of "non-random" than he does. Men of age 55 might be underrepresented one year, but if men of age 56 or 54 were overrepresented by a similar amount, than you'd still have men from 54-56 adequately represented for that single year. And who needs to distinguish ages even at that level? If senior citizens generally were underrepresented that would be an issue, but even if they were underrepresented one year the survey was given if they were proportinately represented aggregating over every year (which is what I'm doing) I would not deem it non-random/biased.

Since I read a lot of Bryan Caplan, my alarm goes off when someone tries to make a big deal out of income in politics. For one thing, the sign goes the wrong way: upper income people tend to be to the right of lower income people. For another thing, the correlation is quite small. Not much room for the rational self-interested voter hypothesis. Race, in comparison, is a huge factor. Religiosity is as well.

The idea that Jews are somehow isolated from AA (Peter A says there is no AA at Goldman Sachs, Skadden Arps, or Blackstone) is rubbish. People at GS are deeply unconfortable with the image of being a Jewish firm, and go to bizarre lengths to show they are not, like choosing incompetent CEOs of the "right" color. They are behaving like that not because of fear of AA but fear of antisemitism. Peter, just think of the Bolshevik Central Committee formed mainly by members of a certain Nationality, who could not get themselves to choose as their leader Trotsky over Lenin or Stalin. It is hard to be a Jew at GS, as always is everywhere.
Another point missed by Peter is that most of American Jews are not working at GS or Blackstone, but in teaching. And in the teaching industry, universities and so on, AA reigns supreme. In fact, although the USA is nominally capitalist and theoretically one could make a living in the private sector, street level reality is that you cannot go to the toilet without a Government permit. And Government enforces AA fanatically. To make it short, Russian Jews in America are in the wrong place.

The Audacious Epigone has a response regarding the reliability of the GSS:
http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2009/07/young-women-do-get-around-albeit-once.html

Furthering TGGP, Whiskey's hobby horse about the GSS being allegedly useless because the sample size for a particular age is not sufficiently large enough to be statistically significant makes no sense, unless the purpose behind the survey in question is to determine the feelings of 43 year olds or whatever. If this were the standard for all polls, Rasmussen, Zogby, etc would be out of business unless they could find an economically viable way to survey 100,000 people in each of their daily tracking polls.

The comments to this entry are closed.