Homogeneity allows for more progressive policy. T/F?

[Anonymous]

A question for progressives:

In general, democrats/liberals in the US support more immigration, amnesty of those here illegally, and other policies that support heterogeneity.

However progressive economic policies seem to only flourish within homogeneity.

Which is more important to progressives? The former or the later?

I already had my own opinions on this but this article made me think of it again today:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/385035/homogeneity-their-strength-kevin-d-williamson

I have voted D in all elections for full disclosure.

Liberals/SWPL's act the same 'white flightish' ways that caused de-urbanization as well - look at white people commenting regarding cupertino, tj, and other schools if too many asians come in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A question for progressives:

In general, democrats/liberals in the US support more immigration, amnesty of those here illegally, and other policies that support heterogeneity.

However progressive economic policies seem to only flourish within homogeneity.

Which is more important to progressives? The former or the later?

I already had my own opinions on this but this article made me think of it again today:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/385035/homogeneity-their-strength-kevin-d-williamson

I have voted D in all elections for full disclosure.

Liberals/SWPL's act the same 'white flightish' ways that caused de-urbanization as well - look at white people commenting regarding cupertino, tj, and other schools if too many asians come in.

Your article could be summed up "socialism works in Norway because they are ethnically pure and people help their own kind". What a crock.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A question for progressives:

In general, democrats/liberals in the US support more immigration, amnesty of those here illegally, and other policies that support heterogeneity.

However progressive economic policies seem to only flourish within homogeneity.

Which is more important to progressives? The former or the later?

I already had my own opinions on this but this article made me think of it again today:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/385035/homogeneity-their-strength-kevin-d-williamson

I have voted D in all elections for full disclosure.

Liberals/SWPL's act the same 'white flightish' ways that caused de-urbanization as well - look at white people commenting regarding cupertino, tj, and other schools if too many asians come in.

Your article could be summed up "socialism works in Norway because they are ethnically pure and people help their own kind". What a crock.

But isn't that the case?

Look at subgroups in the US. They can be insular b/c they wish to retain their cultural norms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A question for progressives:

In general, democrats/liberals in the US support more immigration, amnesty of those here illegally, and other policies that support heterogeneity.

However progressive economic policies seem to only flourish within homogeneity.

Which is more important to progressives? The former or the later?

I already had my own opinions on this but this article made me think of it again today:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/385035/homogeneity-their-strength-kevin-d-williamson

I have voted D in all elections for full disclosure.

Liberals/SWPL's act the same 'white flightish' ways that caused de-urbanization as well - look at white people commenting regarding cupertino, tj, and other schools if too many asians come in.

Your article could be summed up "socialism works in Norway because they are ethnically pure and people help their own kind". What a crock.

But isn't that the case?

Look at subgroups in the US. They can be insular b/c they wish to retain their cultural norms.

OP here, not PP's. I think the PP you responded to would say that, that is ok since that doesn't/isn't overtly setting national policy.

It isn't a case of 'purity' and more that is there any credence that people are more open to helping one of their own.

that seems to be true? You see it even in the most trivial stuff like networking for jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A question for progressives:

In general, democrats/liberals in the US support more immigration, amnesty of those here illegally, and other policies that support heterogeneity.

However progressive economic policies seem to only flourish within homogeneity.

Which is more important to progressives? The former or the later?

I already had my own opinions on this but this article made me think of it again today:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/385035/homogeneity-their-strength-kevin-d-williamson

I have voted D in all elections for full disclosure.

Liberals/SWPL's act the same 'white flightish' ways that caused de-urbanization as well - look at white people commenting regarding cupertino, tj, and other schools if too many asians come in.

Your article could be summed up "socialism works in Norway because they are ethnically pure and people help their own kind". What a crock.

But isn't that the case?

Look at subgroups in the US. They can be insular b/c they wish to retain their cultural norms.

OP here, not PP's. I think the PP you responded to would say that, that is ok since that doesn't/isn't overtly setting national policy.

It isn't a case of 'purity' and more that is there any credence that people are more open to helping one of their own.

that seems to be true? You see it even in the most trivial stuff like networking for jobs.

I think it's human nature.

I have a tight group of friends who share my culture. We network for each other. However, as a female in a huge system, I also have like-minded female friends as my network. We've gotten jobs for each other.

People need to feel a part of a group, and if a country is heterogeneous - meaning it shares a culture - of course it's easier to embrace progressive moves, as chances are you're not offending Group A to benefit Group B.

In some respects it's actually refreshing.

The USA, when you get to the root of our issues which really haven't been resolved, is an ugly nation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A question for progressives:

In general, democrats/liberals in the US support more immigration, amnesty of those here illegally, and other policies that support heterogeneity.

However progressive economic policies seem to only flourish within homogeneity.

Which is more important to progressives? The former or the later?

I already had my own opinions on this but this article made me think of it again today:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/385035/homogeneity-their-strength-kevin-d-williamson

I have voted D in all elections for full disclosure.

Liberals/SWPL's act the same 'white flightish' ways that caused de-urbanization as well - look at white people commenting regarding cupertino, tj, and other schools if too many asians come in.

Your article could be summed up "socialism works in Norway because they are ethnically pure and people help their own kind". What a crock.

But isn't that the case?

Look at subgroups in the US. They can be insular b/c they wish to retain their cultural norms.

OP here, not PP's. I think the PP you responded to would say that, that is ok since that doesn't/isn't overtly setting national policy.

It isn't a case of 'purity' and more that is there any credence that people are more open to helping one of their own.

that seems to be true? You see it even in the most trivial stuff like networking for jobs.

I think it's human nature.

I have a tight group of friends who share my culture. We network for each other. However, as a female in a huge system, I also have like-minded female friends as my network. We've gotten jobs for each other.

People need to feel a part of a group, and if a country is heterogeneous - meaning it shares a culture - of course it's easier to embrace progressive moves, as chances are you're not offending Group A to benefit Group B.

In some respects it's actually refreshing.

The USA, when you get to the root of our issues which really haven't been resolved, is an ugly nation.

Openness to helping others? The question was whether progressive policies succeed in a heterogeneous environment. Once those policies are enacted, "openness to helping others" is moot. Those policies are law and are no longer dependent on the whims of an individual.

If you want to argue that private actions of individuals tend to be bigoted towards people who are similar, fine. But such behavior has nothing to do with government policy.

[Anonymous]

Big liberal here. I would be willing to accept the hypothesis that people are often more inclined to help one of their own, and therefore liberalism often flourishes in homogeneous societies

I believe that progressive policies flourish in times/places of plenty. People are willing to share when they are flush. When resources become more scarce, people start to become more protective of their own. So they fight for lower taxes, less public assistance.... they even want regressive policies on affirmative action, workplace rights for women, etc. etc. Kind of like what we are living now.

[Anonymous]

Openness to helping others? The question was whether progressive policies succeed in a heterogeneous environment. Once those policies are enacted, "openness to helping others" is moot. Those policies are law and are no longer dependent on the whims of an individual.

If you want to argue that private actions of individuals tend to be bigoted towards people who are similar, fine. But such behavior has nothing to do with government policy

.

And people are more inclined to HELP others who are like them.

So if the culture is the same, and Progressivism aims to improve the human condition, it's easier to do when you share the same norms.

Behavior has everything to do with it. Humans are greedy at the core. So we seek out others who are like us and who share our views.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Openness to helping others? The question was whether progressive policies succeed in a heterogeneous environment. Once those policies are enacted, "openness to helping others" is moot. Those policies are law and are no longer dependent on the whims of an individual.

If you want to argue that private actions of individuals tend to be bigoted towards people who are similar, fine. But such behavior has nothing to do with government policy

.

And people are more inclined to HELP others who are like them.

So if the culture is the same, and Progressivism aims to improve the human condition, it's easier to do when you share the same norms.

Behavior has everything to do with it. Humans are greedy at the core. So we seek out others who are like us and who share our views.

I don't see it. If I enact a progressive policy to do job training, tuition subsidies, feeding the homeless, those funds are there and people who are paid to run those programs will do it, whether their clients are from the same background or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Big liberal here. I would be willing to accept the hypothesis that people are often more inclined to help one of their own, and therefore liberalism often flourishes in homogeneous societies

I believe that progressive policies flourish in times/places of plenty. People are willing to share when they are flush. When resources become more scarce, people start to become more protective of their own. So they fight for lower taxes, less public assistance.... they even want regressive policies on affirmative action, workplace rights for women, etc. etc. Kind of like what we are living now.

It would seem in the last financial crisis, this divide was partisan and not racial or cultural. We elected a President who promised to raise taxes on the wealthy, and a bunch of wealthy white people voted for him. I don't think white Democrats decided to claw back public assistance. They expanded it. Republicans, they wanted to cut taxes and cut public assistance.

[Anonymous]

The homogeneity thing is racist.

[Anonymous]

Of course it is. The fact that a persons race or ethnicity would affect generousity is ipso facto racist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Openness to helping others? The question was whether progressive policies succeed in a heterogeneous environment. Once those policies are enacted, "openness to helping others" is moot. Those policies are law and are no longer dependent on the whims of an individual.

If you want to argue that private actions of individuals tend to be bigoted towards people who are similar, fine. But such behavior has nothing to do with government policy

.

And people are more inclined to HELP others who are like them.

So if the culture is the same, and Progressivism aims to improve the human condition, it's easier to do when you share the same norms.

Behavior has everything to do with it. Humans are greedy at the core. So we seek out others who are like us and who share our views.

I don't see it. If I enact a progressive policy to do job training, tuition subsidies, feeding the homeless, those funds are there and people who are paid to run those programs will do it, whether their clients are from the same background or not.

Yes, as we were motivated by money (again - greed)

But we don't do it with the same vim and vigor for every person. If we - as a culture - shared the same beliefs, we'd put more of ourselves into it.

Look at the US. You have people in service professions who won't work as hard for Person X b/c there's the belief that Person X is from a culture that doesn't value hard work. So output is minimal as opposed to optimal.

I had friends in one embassy (my culture) who worked FOR me to get me a job at one point. They certainly weren't reaching out to another person who didn't share our culture.

Likes attract likes, and most will work harder for others with whom they share common bonds.

Isn't that what networking is? It happens in churches, synogogues, mosques, you name it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Openness to helping others? The question was whether progressive policies succeed in a heterogeneous environment. Once those policies are enacted, "openness to helping others" is moot. Those policies are law and are no longer dependent on the whims of an individual.

If you want to argue that private actions of individuals tend to be bigoted towards people who are similar, fine. But such behavior has nothing to do with government policy

.

And people are more inclined to HELP others who are like them.

So if the culture is the same, and Progressivism aims to improve the human condition, it's easier to do when you share the same norms.

Behavior has everything to do with it. Humans are greedy at the core. So we seek out others who are like us and who share our views.

I don't see it. If I enact a progressive policy to do job training, tuition subsidies, feeding the homeless, those funds are there and people who are paid to run those programs will do it, whether their clients are from the same background or not.

Yes, as we were motivated by money (again - greed)

But we don't do it with the same vim and vigor for every person. If we - as a culture - shared the same beliefs, we'd put more of ourselves into it.

Look at the US. You have people in service professions who won't work as hard for Person X b/c there's the belief that Person X is from a culture that doesn't value hard work. So output is minimal as opposed to optimal.

I had friends in one embassy (my culture) who worked FOR me to get me a job at one point. They certainly weren't reaching out to another person who didn't share our culture.

Likes attract likes, and most will work harder for others with whom they share common bonds.

Isn't that what networking is? It happens in churches, synogogues, mosques, you name it.

That is private conduct that would exist whether progressive policies are in place or not. The OP asked about government policy.

[Anonymous]

That is private conduct that would exist whether progressive policies are in place or not. The OP asked about government policy.

What does it matter?

A progressive policy focuses on finding common ground to solidarize.

Are you more likely to meet that outcome in a society that heterogeneous or homogeneous?

And yes, it boils down to human nature.

omg, people
What happened to basic Psyc and Soc 101?