Anonymous wrote:I made this thread almost 5 years ago.

Today, this popped up on my twitter timeline:

https://twitter.com/MattGrossmann/status/1113258527244656640

Dude is a michigan state political scientist currently at Harvard/MIT and a niskanen center fellow.

"In racially homogeneous states, the public responds to rising economic inequality with economic liberalism; in more diverse states, the public responds to inequality with economic conservatism (& less support for welfare/education)"

quoting a paper written by an academic at UNC.

Looks like over the last half decade, my initial thesis has been proven more and more correct.

Meaning, Dems are going in precisely the wrong direction.

I made this thread almost 5 years ago.

Today, this popped up on my twitter timeline:

https://twitter.com/MattGrossmann/status/1113258527244656640

Dude is a michigan state political scientist currently at Harvard/MIT and a niskanen center fellow.

"In racially homogeneous states, the public responds to rising economic inequality with economic liberalism; in more diverse states, the public responds to inequality with economic conservatism (& less support for welfare/education)"

quoting a paper written by an academic at UNC.

Looks like over the last half decade, my initial thesis has been proven more and more correct.

The second article, from yesterday :

https://nyti.ms/2E5M8gU

“This downward trend is not limited to Germany — in most major Western European countries, center-left parties are in retreat, and in some cases they have practically ceased to exist. Just what has happened to social democracy?”

“Social democracy’s second contradiction is that you can’t promote a borderless world and the welfare state at the same time.”

“In the last election, millions of angry left-wing voters in places like the Ruhrgebiet, Germany’s equivalent of the Rust Belt in America, saw a state that had plenty of money for others but not for them. The response of Social Democrat leaders was to label such critics “right-wingers” and to demand they embrace even more liberal virtues, like identity and gender politics. This prompted a defection of hundreds of thousands of Social Democratic voters to the far-right Alternative for Germany, which scored almost 13 percent in the election.”

I don’t take joy in saying “told you so” - im just disheartened why the movers and shakers on our side didn’t see this 3-5 years before in order to formulate solutions. I find it sad that it took 2016/2017 for the “influencers” and policy types to figure his out.

OP here - two recent articles reminded me of this thread I started three years ago -

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/10/immigration-modern-liberalism/543744/

“The doom loop of modern liberalism. Diversity and equality seem tragically incompatible in the world today. Here’s why.”

“But as the foreign-born share of the population rises, xenophobia often festers and threatens egalitarian policymaking”

“This is where the story finally connects with welfare and the future of liberalism. Rich countries tend to redistribute wealth from the rich few to the less-rich multitude. But when that multitude suddenly includes minorities who are seen as outsiders, the white majority can turn resentful and take back their egalitarian promises.“

“But an unavoidable lesson of the last few years, from both inside and outside the U.S., is that cultural heterogeneity and egalitarianism often cut against each other. Pluralist social democracy is stuck in a finger trap of math and bigotry, where to pull on one end (support for diversity) seems to naturally strain the other (support for equality).”

“The liberal cause requires Americans learning to break the catch-22 of diversity and equality. If multicultural egalitarianism is the future of liberal politics, the road to the future will be bumpy.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then how is the the more diverse CA, NY etc are the engines of American technology and finance? If you have ever worked in a top technology company you will hear GLOBAL DIVERSITY in a single team meeting not just American diversity. In NYC you can find people are all ethnicity on trading floor and the big banks have huge number of asians. How is that these super diverse tech companies and banks the most productive and most innovative in the world? Obviously these states make the most revenue in the union and provides the most federal welfare dollars to the LEAST DIVERSE homogeneous states.

Diversity is a strength and thats the advantage US enjoys and it is which makes US exceptional.

You take away diversity and the productive states like CA, NY will become like Montana and Wyoming.

When "diversity" means bringing in the best and the brightest from the rest of the world then I agree that this will benefit the US. Very little of our immigration policy is based on this. Bringing in millions of third worlders w/ little education will not benefit the US.

The boomers are retiring in big numbers and there is not enough talent or man power to replace them at many levels of skills from manual labor to highly skilled. Automation and machines will eliminate some jobs but it won't be enough. The US should re-orient its immigration policy similar to Canada, that is , skill based immigration instead of family based. That was the goal of the comprehensive immigration bill which was oriented to let the talented people to come in. Stopping that means more people will bring their uneducated family members for the foreseeable future.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then how is the the more diverse CA, NY etc are the engines of American technology and finance? If you have ever worked in a top technology company you will hear GLOBAL DIVERSITY in a single team meeting not just American diversity. In NYC you can find people are all ethnicity on trading floor and the big banks have huge number of asians. How is that these super diverse tech companies and banks the most productive and most innovative in the world? Obviously these states make the most revenue in the union and provides the most federal welfare dollars to the LEAST DIVERSE homogeneous states.

Diversity is a strength and thats the advantage US enjoys and it is which makes US exceptional.

You take away diversity and the productive states like CA, NY will become like Montana and Wyoming.

When "diversity" means bringing in the best and the brightest from the rest of the world then I agree that this will benefit the US. Very little of our immigration policy is based on this. Bringing in millions of third worlders w/ little education will not benefit the US.

Different PP. Well CA also has millions of "third worlders" picking the produce you eat. And it doesn't seem to be turning the state red or harming their economy. So you can have your beliefs about what a good immigration policy is, but they aren't held up by reality.

Anonymous wrote:Then how is the the more diverse CA, NY etc are the engines of American technology and finance? If you have ever worked in a top technology company you will hear GLOBAL DIVERSITY in a single team meeting not just American diversity. In NYC you can find people are all ethnicity on trading floor and the big banks have huge number of asians. How is that these super diverse tech companies and banks the most productive and most innovative in the world? Obviously these states make the most revenue in the union and provides the most federal welfare dollars to the LEAST DIVERSE homogeneous states.

Diversity is a strength and thats the advantage US enjoys and it is which makes US exceptional.

You take away diversity and the productive states like CA, NY will become like Montana and Wyoming.

When "diversity" means bringing in the best and the brightest from the rest of the world then I agree that this will benefit the US. Very little of our immigration policy is based on this. Bringing in millions of third worlders w/ little education will not benefit the US.

Yemen is ethnically homogeneous.

Anonymous wrote:Obvi. Look at the Scandinavians.

china is more homogeneous but not progressive.

Then how is the the more diverse CA, NY etc are the engines of American technology and finance? If you have ever worked in a top technology company you will hear GLOBAL DIVERSITY in a single team meeting not just American diversity. In NYC you can find people are all ethnicity on trading floor and the big banks have huge number of asians. How is that these super diverse tech companies and banks the most productive and most innovative in the world? Obviously these states make the most revenue in the union and provides the most federal welfare dollars to the LEAST DIVERSE homogeneous states.

Diversity is a strength and thats the advantage US enjoys and it is which makes US exceptional.

You take away diversity and the productive states like CA, NY will become like Montana and Wyoming.

Anonymous wrote:OP here - interesting blurb in a big atlantic piece written today:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/hillary-clinton-working-class/509477/

The long-term future of the U.S. involves rising diversity, rising inequality, and rising redistribution. The combination of these forces makes for an unstable and unpredictable system. Income stagnation and inequality encourage policies to redistribute wealth from a rich few to the anxious multitudes. But when that multitude includes minorities who are seen as benefiting disproportionately from those redistribution policies, the white majority can turn resentful. (This may be one reason why the most successful social democracies, as in Scandinavia, were initially almost all white.) Nobody has really figured out how to be an effective messenger for pluralist social democracy, except, perhaps, for one of the few American adults who is legally barred from running for the U.S. presidency in the future.

over two years after I made my OP, it seems like some of the mainstream left is starting to admit this.

OP, it's very timely that you've revived this thread, and I'm glad you shared this article because I would have otherwise. It's more interetsing in the context of this thread, though.

I think your original post did very much identify perhaps the central tension within the liberal movement today, but I think it's oversimplifying to take this election's outcome as a demonstration that diverse societies cannot have progressive policies, though they may be harder to implement. Small-government Republicans have been demonizing social programs for decades, and I know enough people in the elite of that group to know their objection is not about benefits going to non-whites. For a variety of reasons, some of which are very much rooted in fears about government overreach as a threat to liberty, they truly believe the government has no place in many of the arenas it's in. I don't think that's been the overarching goal of the majority of the Republican party, but a fundamental mistrust of government is deeply embedded in the modern GOP. And that very much informs how voters view social programs in general. This does not in any way negate the fact that Republicans (and occasionally Democrats) have also been using racially coded language since the 70s to rile up opposition to these programs as well, but it does complicate the simple picture of diversity vs. progressive social policy.

I think it's strange that the last line in your quote suggests that Obama was "an effective messenger for pluralist social democracy". I think Obama won by largely ignoring pluralism in his rhetoric...and early on in his policies as well. He shifted more toward pluralism in his second term, which probably contributed to Clinton's loss (e.g. his tacit support for BLM). And the rabid white tribalism that has been a response to his Presidency from day 1 also suggests that he was never really able to unite the country in a meaningful post-racial way. [None of this is intended as criticism of him. I don't know anyone who could have done this, and I give credit to Obama for much of the grace with which he handled the backlash against his blackness.]

I think the real challenge facing liberals is figuring out how to deliver the message that pluralism is good for America in every way including economically. This seems like it would be an obvious argument to make, considering the more diverse parts of this country are almost all economically better off than the more homogenous ones. But in the era of poll-tested politics, neither party really seems that interested in leading and instead drifts toward whatever random sentiments voters are expressing.

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.

Dear OP, that ship of homogeneity has sailed...quite long ago in fact, when white men invaded the land of Native Americans and then imported enslaved Africans.

The United States is and has always been a land of heterogeneous populations. Nothing you can do about it that doesn't entail a holocaust of some sort.

Obvi. Look at the Scandinavians.

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.

The entire article is based on a wrong premise. Humans are the same species. Animals help each other within the same species BUT there is no cross-species altruism.

Infact I would make an argument against this article that as humans become more intermingled, marry across races, the differences gets reduced then there won't be any signs of tribalism. That tribalism itself is due to separation of multiple identities on race, religion etc. When you do not have a reason to have multiple identities OR atleast hard edged multiple identities then tribalism declines.

It is not diversity that is the issue, it is infact lack of REAL AND TRUE RESPECT FOR DIVERSITY that is the issue. Look at the FOrbes(a conservative magazine) how diverse teams are more innovative.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/tendayiviki/2016/12/06/why-diverse-teams-are-more-creative/

Scientific American article on how diversity makes us smarter.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-diversity-makes-us-smarter/

Harvard Business REVIEW ON how diversity can drive innovation. I can go on and on.
https://hbr.org/2013/12/how-diversity-can-drive-innovation

I have personal experience working with many cross-cultural teams spread all over the world from Americans, Europeans, Indians ,Chinese in building a product. In a very diverse group the work gets done because everyone respects the other person's contribution and strengths. Americans are the best at identifying market niches, Europeans are strong in technical fundamentals, Asians are pretty sharp in developing applications rapidly. How can people from one culture replace this super productive but very diverse team?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

liamw wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

liamw wrote:So what your saying is that people who work harder and apply them self should have the same as those who don't

Not that poster, but I would say that people who have not had the same advantages and luck that you and I have had also deserve a basic standard of living. It is in your and my best interest to have a populace that is NOT starving, NOT homeless, and NOT uneducated. Happy to pay my taxes so that our streets don't become something out of a Dickens novel.

I grew up at the dead end of a dirt road, with the closest walmart over 30 minutes away, with an avj income of my town of 12k I made it through hard work they can to. People CHOOSE not to go to school, people CHOOSE to make the urban culture more important that success, people CHOOSE to live a gang life, people make choices and choices have consequences.

Being a minority is not a choice. And being a minority means that you do have fewer opportunities than white people. You know it's true. White privilege is real. - Very white lady

Sorry, I don’t agree. It is much, much easier for a minority candidate to get a scholarship, a grant, and sometimes even a job. If you have children college-age, you would know this. Finding scholarships or grants or tuition assistance for white middle-class students is pretty tough. Because of affirmative action, a minority is just as likely, if not more so, to get a job over a white person - all things being equal.

I have children in college and I know nothing of the sort. Your assertion that things are easier for minorities is patently--and provably--false.

--white mom of white kids

+1
Watch the documentary White People. It dispels this and many other myths that are perpetuated by white people who think they're at a disadvantage.