December 15, 2007

82% of Top 100 liberals are white and 81% male

UPDATED: A point I've made repeatedly is that at the upper reaches of American life, status competition is overwhelmingly a white vs. white struggle, with nonwhites playing largely token roles to help whites For example, 98+% of Fortune 500 CEOs and 94% of studio movie screenwriters are white (and typically male).

Audacious Epigone
documents this for politics by figuring out the demographics of the London Daily Telegraph's list of the 100 most influential American liberals and 100 most influential American conservatives. Who's on the list and in what order they appear is arguable (that's one purpose of these lists -- to generate arguments).

But these kind of lists are very useful for advancing demographic understanding because they typically are developed for other purposes than to advocate a particularly point about demography. They don't have to be all that accurate to give a reasonable picture of elite demographics.

So, what we find is that whites and males still dominate on both sides of the ideological divide:

AttributeLiberalConservative
Average Age58 years, 7 monthsJust under 58 years
Male81%93%
Female19%7%
Outed homosexual3%2%^
Religion/heritage

Protestant43%44%
Catholic27%29%
Mormon1%3%
Orthodox3%*0%
Jewish24%23%
Buddhist1%**0%
Openly atheist3%1%

Race



White82.5%94%
Black14.5%3%
Hispanic3%1%^^
Asian0%2%

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

62 comments:

neil craig said...

If 99% of CEOs are white then orientals are also clearly somewhat underrepresented. Seeing that orientals score about 5% better on IQ tests & are well represented on scientific papers this is surprising. How much this is the advantage of old established money or whether they are, either culturally or intrinsicly, less pushy would be an interesting question. Are they better represented in recently formed companies & if so by how much?

Bill said...

This is relevant to something I was thinking about just a little while ago.

Listening to NPR report on Obama and his increasingly credible campaign for the Democratic ticket, it seemed to me that although white liberals are patting themselves on the back for supporting him, he does in fact represent the beginning of a shift away from white supremacy in liberal politics.

Blacks are starting to take him seriously, and he'll probably get at least average support (for Democrats) from Hispanic and Asian voters. The white folks who support and are engineering the racial transformation of America really do believe in their hearts that they'll always be needed to run institutions and keep poorly-behaved whites in line, so they are blind to the fact that in time they will just be shoved out of the way.

This has been on my mind in part because of the demographic report you wrote for VDare the other day, which was kind of depressing to be honest (here in Seattle, essentially San Francisco's nerdy kid sister as far as politics and social trends go, it's pretty hard not to be cynical about the future). As bad as things look on paper, I have to stop and remember that there is still a huge part of the country that is culturally and even demographically isolated from these trends. But liberals are right in the middle of it, and they are the ones who will be overrun and replaced.

One of the local liberal bloggers was writing about how white people are worried that they will no longer have the "privilege" that they supposedly enjoy. He wrote that he's not worried that other whites will lose out because "I know I'll always have a seat at the table." Aside from giving away his motives, he also displayed some undue optimism. He's wrong. White liberals will not have a seat at the table.

Obama heralds the eventual shift away from white dominance of the Democratic Party. He is the Sydney Poitier to the old Democrats' Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn in "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?", and he plays the role with the same urbane charm.

The demographic trends you outlined represent looming giants just over the horizon, and the system maintained by people born when this was an overwhelmingly white country won't survive their arrival. Obama's the messenger, who comes in peace while all the old liberal white ladies throw garlands around his neck (it's funny to see so many old women gushing over him). But what he really represents is the emergence of non-white political influence. As you've spelled out, he believes in empowering his race. It is a part of his personal agenda.

This status competition between whites, although still relevant, is in its twilight years. White liberals who think they can maintain their current level of political power and influence in the face of demographic displacement are indulging in fantasies.

People will get used to seeing more brown faces in power in the Democratic Party and liberal institutions; I expect that by the time I'm solidly middle-aged (20 years or so), it will be the norm and there will be two de-facto nations in this country. By that time, white liberals will be rapidly-aging relics, sort of like the white Southern Democrats of the 1980s, who, I am told, used to be a force to be reckoned with.

Audacious Epigone said...

I forgot initially (I've fixed that now) to display the Jewish percentages on both sides--24% of liberals and 23% of conservatives.

Anonymous said...

Come on, 99% of Fortune 500 CEOs cant be white. There are at least two Indian origin ones - Indra Nooyi, who runs Pepsi, and, as of last week, Vikram Pandit, who runs Citigroup.

Michael said...

It's weird that the Asians are conservative but the Atheists are liberal. Asian conservative and atheist would be expected to correlate positively given that, you know, East Asian religions are in any reasonably sophisticated form generally non-theistic.

David said...

See? It's all a White male conspiracy.

Seriously, the fact that many of these malefactors are Whites is important only to show the depth of betrayal they've committed...against fellow Whites. Their betrayal is a class war more than a racial one: the "house Whites" against the "field Whites."

We "field Whites" pay taxes, the "house Whites" spend the taxes. We "field Whites" want affordable family formation; the "house Whites" want a fortune from preventing our affordable family formation. The question is, Who in this rough analogy is the Master?

ghetto watson said...

"Emanuel is passionately pro-Israel and the son of an Irgun member. He was a civilian volunteer on an Israel Defence Forces base in Israel during the Gulf War. His brother Ari Emanuel is a Hollywood super-agent and major Democratic contributor who is backing Obama."

And where does this fit in on these lists?

pismire said...

Come on, 99% of CEOS can't be white. I know of at least two Indians - Indra Nooyi, who runs Pepsi, and, as of last week, Vikram Pandit, who runds Citigroup.

britlurker said...

One expected religion/race seems entirely absent!

the Narrator... said...

By "white", are we talking about Caucasians or (Indigenous European) whites?

RKU said...

One thing I noticed is that the religion/heritage categories don't actually add up to anything close to 100% in either ideological category. The total comes to 78% for liberals and 77% for conservatives.

I guess that Steve or his source has discovered a new law of mathematics or something.

Quite, quite mysterious.

Swede Lagom said...

My tally of the most influential US liberals...I'd also say 25-30% are ethnic Jews or 1/2 Jewish ethnically...

none of the above said...

You should link to that wonderful Onion story about a man taking control of the feminist movement for this article; it tracks beautifully.

Anonymous said...

Hey Steve, what gives with your religious breakdown? I know some of these figures (a hell of a lot more than 3%, which is roughly their portion of the US population) are Jewish, at least by ethnicity.

Also, how the hell does Jack Abramov get labeled more important in the Conservative than Pat Buchanan? Is he even a conservative, or does he just sell his lobbying services to the highest bidder? Larry Craig an influential conservative? Please, give me a break!

Anonymous said...

huh, no Jewish liberals or conservatives??

SKT said...

I agree with the liberal list a lot more than the conservative list. Europeans have strange ideas about conservative politics in America.

#1 Giuliani makes conservatives cringe, and #2 Petraeus is a nobody in the conservative world.

Erik L. said...

What Percentage of people in the US are black? Isn't it around the number (or maybe slightly lower) shown for liberals?

Jim O'Sullivan said...

No Jews?

tommy said...

Some of the women on the liberal list wouldn't even be famous if not for their husbands: Elizabeth Edwards and Michelle Obama both made the cut. Down with the patriarchy!

A few of the selections look more like the Telegraph's attempt to make liberals seem more diverse than they really are. Deval Patrick, the black Massachusetts governor, is one of the Top 100? I would bet the average black man or white liberal outside of the Commonwealth has barely even heard of the guy. The same goes for Cory Booker, the governor of Newark.

The Telgraph's biases are frequently obvious, of course. Compare the description of Ann Coulter to the much softer description of Jesse Jackson:

Ann Coulter: A rabid polemicist whose no-holds-barred baiting of Liberals is red meat to the angry American male. Many leading Republicans believe she does the Conservative cause more harm than good and that she will say anything to generate a headline.

Jesse Jackson: Still hailed by many Democrats as the black conscience of America. A member of Martin Luther King civil rights movement, even in the 1960s he alienated some allies with his penchant for showmanship and self-promotion. A passionate preacher, he counselled Bill Clinton after his sins of the flesh with Monica Lewinsky became public – sins that, it later emerged, Jackson also had to atone for.

Full-time scumbag, David Brock, made the list and is given an entirely uncritical description (except for his behavior during the Clinton years).

The Telegraph really loves Obama. They even put David Plouffe, Obama's campaign manager, on the list. Scratch that. They must really love Hillary: they put Hillary Clinton's campaign manager and communications director on the list. (Which had the effect of inflating the list by one female no one actually knows or cares about.)

Abizaid was added to the list of liberals, not because of any known political affiliation or leaning, but because of his dovish stance on Iranq:

Far from being a declared liberal or Democrat, Abizaid is included on this list because of his reported comments about Iraq – backing a troop withdrawal – and, most recently, Iran. "There are ways to live with a nuclear Iran," he said last month. "Let's face it, we lived with a nuclear Soviet Union, we've lived with a nuclear China." Would be a future National Security Adviser, Middle East envoy or Pentagon chief in a Democratic administration keen to boost its military credentials.

If that is all it takes to be declared a liberal, take Pat Buchanan off the conservative list! I guess I'm a liberal also.

They also decided Schwarzenegger belonged on the liberal list - hard to disagree with that.

They put Drew Carey and Chuck Norris on the list of influential conservatives. Frankly, I didn't know Drew Carey was a conservative. That Chuck Norris is a conservative, I've long known. That he is somehow influential with conservatives, I hadn't. The top Hollywood liberals were given as Oprah, Streisand, Jon Stewart, Colbert, Clooney, Robert Greenwald, and Aaron Sorkin. Is Clooney really more influential than Sean Penn or Spielberg?

dearieme said...

The top 20 liberals list is certainly interesting. Two of the women are there as wives - Edwards & Hellary - and one seems to be there partly by virtue of an ex-husband's money - Puffington. Two people are scions of political dynasties - Ms Pelosi and Al Globe. All in all, it makes it very obvious why the combination of Senator Baghdad Osama with Oprah has such an appeal.

Steve Sailer said...

Sorry, I originally left out by accident the Jewish percentage: 24% for liberals and 23% for conservatives. Audacious explains, "Judaism, however, is determined by birth."

skeptical said...

I'm definitely looking forward to the displacements of Whites from American leftist politics. Obviously it's not happening fast enough though.

It would bring immense clarity to what's going on in the U.S. if the Democrats became the "out-and-out" political party for non-Whites and non-White representation.

cshw said...

ghetto watson,

Rahm Emanuel is clearly just another "white" who sees politics as useful for nothing beyond "status competition" with others who are ethnically indistinguishable from himself.

Anonymous said...

The first comment was the most telling:

If 99% of CEOs are white then orientals are also clearly somewhat underrepresented. Seeing that orientals score about 5% better on IQ tests & are well represented on scientific papers this is surprising. How much this is the advantage of old established money or whether they are, either culturally or intrinsicly, less pushy would be an interesting question.
-------------------

So IQ tests replace performance in determining CEO's. And investment advisors: clerarly Warren Buffett must have a higher IQ than all other people in America. And bloggers, clearly Steve must have a higher IQ than all the millions of bloggers who have less success than him. If your success in the world does not match your IQ the world is unjust - wait - is it not if your success does not match the porportion of the ethnic group you belong to percentages of the whole than the world is unjust?

James Kabala said...

Tonmmy: The Telegraph is generally regarded as a conservative paper.

desmond jones said...

How much this is the advantage of old established money or whether they are, either culturally or intrinsicly, less pushy would be an interesting question.

La Griffe answers the question in Why Asians lag II? He suggests the N.E Asian IQ is elevated on the visual-spatial side and lags 6-8 points on the verbal side. High verbal IQ appears to be a marker for success in business/politics.

tommy said...

Tonmmy: The Telegraph is generally regarded as a conservative paper.

Maybe it's just their Washington correspondents.

appeal to reason said...

Their betrayal is a class war more than a racial one: the "house Whites" against the "field Whites."

We "field Whites" pay taxes, the "house Whites" spend the taxes. We "field Whites" want affordable family formation; the "house Whites" want a fortune from preventing our affordable family formation.


I almost died laughing when I read this (and no, that's not a good thing). Thank you for making my day, white Malcolm X.

The question is, Who in this rough analogy is the Master?
Come on, now, how could you have missed this one? It's obviously, as Cartman says, the "J-O-Os." I'm really disappointed that you haven't realized that. Maybe you aren't the white Malcolm X, after all...

SKT said...

"Tonmmy: The Telegraph is generally regarded as a conservative paper."

European conservatives are typically hostile to American conservatives.

They come in 2 breeds. Either the nativist type who care primarily about limiting immigration. These conservatives loath Americans, just because they don't like any outside influence and are resentful about the influence of American policy and culture.

Then there are the modern British conservatives, who rather act like liberals with their support for gay marriage, abortion, welfare, etc., with basically the only thing setting them apart being promises for small tax cuts. These modern Euro-cons see American conservatives as luddites.

The era of Ronald Reagan riding horses with Margaret Thatcher has long passed. Even conservative allies like Berlusconi have been thrown out of office.

Otto Kerner said...

It's striking that black people are slightly overrepresented in the liberal list, relative to their proportion of the population (although I suppose black people might constitute more than 14.5% of the liberals in the U.S). Whites are even more overrepresented, though. What's really missing here is Latinos, which fits in with Steve's observation that Hispanic Americans have a strikingly low level of impact on American culture.

David said...

appeal to reason said

I almost died laughing when I read this

The nation died while I was laughing. Fixed that for you.

Ron Guhname said...

otto: yes, the Hispanic numbers are very striking. Steve might be right about America turning into Latin America with fearful whites on the top and angry browns on the bottom.

Evil Neocon said...

Women: Liberal 19%, Conservative 7%.

Interesting. That's the one significant difference I see between Liberal/Conservative, though as noted above in comments above methodology may be lacking.

Women are generally more liberal than men, which makes sense if you think about it.

Liberalism in it's modern form is akin to status seeking, like shopping at IKEA or driving a Volvo. Women generally like that thing a lot more than men, and modern Liberalism's cathedral of status hierarchies would naturally appeal to women more than Conservativism's rather flat hierarchy and lip service at least to populism (which women always hate).

Reg C├Žsar said...

Neo evolcon wrote:
Women are generally more liberal than men, which makes sense if you think about it.


Only since about 1975, when liberalism aged enough that defending it became a sort of conservativism of its own. Political scientists had long noted women's greater resistance to mad male ideas like socialism-- Phyllis Schlafly mentions this in one of her books.

Warren Harding's landslide was a result of the Nineteenth Amendment-- he'd have won anyway, but a male vote would have been much closer.

Had women voted in more states in 1916 (only Illinois, California and a bunch of smaller Western states let them), we might have avoided Woodrow Wilson and WWI-- and II!

Bill said...

Audacious explains, "Judaism, however, is determined by birth."

-S. Sailer


I've got to take issue with Audacious there. That may be the case in Israel, but in America Judaism is determined by belief. According to the US Census, it is a religion, not an ethnicity.

In America, there is no law that someone who is born Jewish must remain so. Being Jewish in America is a personal choice. If you don't want to be Jewish, you don't have to be. If you do want to be Jewish, you are free to be so under the eye of the law, no matter what certain organized bodies, whatever they call themselves, have to say about it.

Got a problem with that? Amend the Constitution.

Audacious Epigone said...

Sorry about the Jewish omission. That was my fault, not Steve's. In my original posting I forgot to include it in my table.

Bill,

That's just the methodology I used. I'd say most of the Jews on the list are not practicing, or at least not publicly known to be. But if they were born in a Jewish household to Jewish parents, I counted them as Jewish.

Svigor said...

12/16/2007 2:43 AM

LOL. The U.S. government also calls Indians and Arabs "white." Never mind all the issues surrounding "hispanic."

Since when is the government the arbiter of reality?

Jewry is obviously a tribe, more than it is a religion, and many Jews are atheists or "secular Jews" or "ethnically Jewish."

SFG said...

We "field Whites" pay taxes, the "house Whites" spend the taxes. We "field Whites" want affordable family formation; the "house Whites" want a fortune from preventing our affordable family formation. The question is, Who in this rough analogy is the Master?

The rich. Duh. We can't talk about class?

David said...

bill said,

Being Jewish in America is a personal choice. If you don't want to be Jewish, you don't have to be. If you do want to be Jewish, you are free to be so under the eye of the law, no matter what certain organized bodies, whatever they call themselves, have to say about it. Got a problem with that? Amend the Constitution.

Those "certain organized bodies" apparently include:

* Israel
* Orthodox Judaism
* Most physicians (I want to be a Jew. Where do I line up to get my Tay-Sachs?)
* Most geneticists
* Most historians
* Most Jews
* Most people everywhere (what is the meaning of "secular Jew"?)

On your side, you have the Constitution. Not. Where does it say anything about Jews in the Constitution?

The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion. "Being Jewish," however, is not a religion (technically, anyway). You haven't proved it is. All you've done is allude to the establishment clause.

Though some statutes may define the category "Jewish" as a religion, the Constitution does not; amending the Constitution is not required, Bill. And no statute says the category "Jewish" is only a religion.

Wikipedia has an informative entry.

Shaker said...

"In an ethnic sense, an Ashkenazi Jew is one whose ancestry can be traced to the Jews of central and Eastern Europe." Wikipedia

You can't change genetics...Tay Sachs, etc.

Steven Spielberg is an ethnic Jew. His wife, Kate Capshaw, converted to (the religion of) Judaism. Woody Allen is an ethnic Jew. Sammy Davis, Jr. converted to the religion of Judaism. Maury Povich is an ethnic Jew. His wife, Connie Chung, is a convert to the religion of Judaism...

Mark said...

In America, there is no law that someone who is born Jewish must remain so.

When it was revealed that Sen. George Allen's mother was Jewish, the inestimable, irreplaceable John Podidiotz stated quite authoritatively at The Corner that 'because George Allen's mother was a Jew therefore Sen. Allen is a Jew.' Why, it's Rabbinic law!

Nevermind that Sen. Allen's mother rejected her Jewish faith. Nevermind that Allen himself chose to be Presbyterian. "Your mother's a Jew, you're a Jew." Adolph Hitler couldn't have said it better.

It also reminds me a little of when I left the Mormon faith in which I was raised. I kept getting letters (to my Post Office box) from Mormon HQ asking for a physical address so they could send my records to my congregation. Finally I got tired of the letters (junk mail, in my view), and replied to HQ that I no longer was a Mormon, did not consider myself a Mormon, and to strike my name from their rolls. They sent me back a letter telling me I could only do that by meeting with my local clergyman.

For what, so they could find a reason to excommunicate me? So they could grill me on personal matters that are personal? Have I been drinking? Yes. Did I sleep with my wife before I married her? Indubitably.

"No, sir," I replied, "in my view he has no authority over me. I have nothing to say to this stranger who probably lives two blocks down from me who under any other circumstance I would think is a pretty decent guy."

Like it or not, there are some people in this country who do not consider your religion to be a personal choice. Probably lots of Muslims feel that way, too.

But as or the Jewish question, it's a perfectly respectable category, so long as it's placed under ethnicity, which it also is, and not religion.

Fred said...

"In America, there is no law that someone who is born Jewish must remain so. Being Jewish in America is a personal choice. If you don't want to be Jewish, you don't have to be."

Depends on who's doing the defining. According to some of the white nationalists here, once you are born a Jew, you will always be a Jew, whatever religion you decide to practice (or even if you don't practice any religion).

Evil Neocon said...

The shift in Liberalism probably dates back to the 1960's. Kennedy was about as much style and status-seeking (which women love) than anything else. Camelot?

Once Liberalism promised women upward mobility and status, instead of dreary programs for working class men, like unionization, well Liberalism took off like wildfire among women.

As for Wilson, very likely ANY President would have intervened in Europe. It was very much against US interests to allow a hostile power, then and now, to dominate Europe. The Kaiser, Hitler, Stalin, it did not matter. All those skilled people, factories, knowledge arrayed against the US to at the least reduce US influence across the globe would have guaranteed any President intervening. And lacking a defeat so massive and demoralizing that no further appetite for war would exist (plus an enemy to either the East or West that was too dangerous to provoke), Germany was certain to restart a global war to arrange things to it's favor.

While the Zimmerman Telegram was faked, Germany DID openly intervene in Mexico, sending various military advisors to each side (even Villa had a few) and did make vague promises to Mexico to "assist" in recapturing parts of the Southwest ceded in the Mexican-American War. This violation of the Monroe Doctrine alone would have guaranteed say a President Roosevelt or Taft entering the war against Germany.

Germany's tragedy was that for a variety of reasons it failed to unify as a nation state in the late Medieval Period, unlike England and France. Further amplified by France's efforts to prolong the Thirty Years War and keep Germany supine and devastated (nearly a third of German speakers died in the conflict). What internal contradictions and conflicts other nations worked out in the era of wheel-locks and arquebuses, Germany worked out in the age of repeating, cartridge fed weapons. While lacking "desirable" colonies where riches could be obtained and the diseases were not as severe. South Africa and Australia and India being more desirable than say, Togoland, for a poor and ambitious young man to make his way in life.

Anonymous said...

1-2% of Fortune 500 CEOs are black.

I don't know the number, but in Silicon Valley there are lots of Asians who were the founders of companies.

It's unlikely 98%+.

Bill said...

The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion. "Being Jewish," however, is not a religion (technically, anyway). You haven't proved it is. All you've done is allude to the establishment clause.

-david


Where I live there is a guy in prison who has converted to Judaism. He is serious enough to have learned the prayers, Hebrew, studied the Talmud, etc. He knows Judaism better than many Jewish convicts in the prison, and despite the objections of some rabbis, has held services.

Here is a quote from the article:

"Federal courts have made it very clear that when determining the legitimacy of a prisoner's declared religion, the state must accept a prisoner's "sincerely held belief" rather than rely on the hierarchy of an established religion. In 1999, the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, in Jackson v. Mann, found in favor of Nathaniel Jackson, a New York inmate, in his claim of being Jewish that was denied by the state on the basis of advice from a Jewish chaplain. That is why Michigan does not ask someone if they were born into the Jewish faith or consult with rabbis about whether someone is really Jewish. Instead, Michigan relies on an inquiry that tests the sincerity of a prisoner's faith. The belief has to be sincere, but the prisoner doesn't have to follow the rules and regulations set forth by a rabbinical board."

The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion. "Being Jewish," however, is not a religion (technically, anyway). You haven't proved it is.

Sophistry. "Being Jewish" is not a religion, but Judaism is. Being Christian is not a religion either. Does that mean Christianity is not a religion?

Bill said...

Depends on who's doing the defining. According to some of the white nationalists here, once you are born a Jew, you will always be a Jew, whatever religion you decide to practice (or even if you don't practice any religion).

-fred


I think they're wrong, but I wouldn't blame them for coming up with that idea.

Differences in belief are more important and relevant than ethnic/racial differences when it comes to European Jews and Gentiles. I think the blame for overemphasizing relatively minor racial differences can be spread around a bit, and falls on both sides.

Anonymous said...

I don't know the number, but in Silicon Valley there are lots of Asians who were the founders of companies.

Quite a few, but how many ride high market caps to high revenues? Jerry Yang of Yahoo, certainly - but who else?

The Forbes 400 lists several Asians who made fortunes in Tech, but most are either non-founders (like Omid Kordestani of Google (who is probably considered "white" anyway)), run companies too small for the Fortune 500 (Garmin), or run private companies that aren't on the Fortune 500 (Kingston Technology).

The Forbes 400 lists 31 fortunes made in Technology, 7 of whom are Asian (Arab, Persian, Indian, or Oriental): Min Kao (Garmin), David Sun & John Tu (Kingston), Omid Kordestani, James Kim (Electronics Boutique & Amkor), Jerry Yang, and Kavitark Shriram (Google).

In software it lists 5 fortunes, 1 of whom is Asian: Bharat Desai (Syntel).

In this country, "white" and "Caucasian" have long been synonymous with European, or even WASP. That's why that data can be misleading. Some people mean for it to be.

Half Sigma said...

The white folks who support and are engineering the racial transformation of America really do believe in their hearts that they'll always be needed to run institutions and keep poorly-behaved whites in line, so they are blind to the fact that in time they will just be shoved out of the way.

Indeed, the whites running the Democratic party, gleeful about the fact that minorities vote Democratic, and soon minorities will be the majority, will be sadly disappointed to discover that soon minorities will dominate the Democratic party, and they will start promoting issues that are of interest to minorities and not elite-white-liberals.

James Kabala said...

I don't think that we should have entered World War I, but evil neocon undersells his own case. The Zimmerman telegram was real, and I don't believe its authenticity has ever been called into serious question.

SFG said...

Nevermind that Sen. Allen's mother rejected her Jewish faith. Nevermind that Allen himself chose to be Presbyterian. "Your mother's a Jew, you're a Jew." Adolph Hitler couldn't have said it better.

As I recall, when asked about it he felt the need to bring up his love of ham. Maybe being half Jewish wouldn't have hurt him, but he at least thought it could.

Anonymous said...

As I recall, when asked about it [Sen. Allen] felt the need to bring up his love of ham. Maybe being half Jewish wouldn't have hurt him, but he at least thought it could.

George Allen lost by a grand total of 7,231 votes out of 2.36 million cast, against a very charismatic, well-qualified, and likeable opponent. If 3,616 people had changed their votes, he would've won.

His mishandling revealed a condescension towards the people of Virginia and a certain type of stupidity.

Assuming they wouldn't vote for him because he was part Jewish was offensive to potential voters. We have a dozen or so Jewish senators in this country, not one from a state with anything close to a Jewish majority.

It was also pretty stupid to assume that once such a simple question was raised that it wouldn't be followed through to a conclusive answer. That he didn't understand that was a disqualification in itself.

And the latter possibility is the most bizarre: that he just plain didn't know. The guy really had NO interest in his mother's heritage? Where she was from? What grandma and grandpa were like? It beggar's belief.

Fred said...

"Assuming they wouldn't vote for him because he was part Jewish was offensive to potential voters. We have a dozen or so Jewish senators in this country, not one from a state with anything close to a Jewish majority."

Do you really not understand the difference? Jewish Senators may not hail from any Jewish-majority states, but they do tend to hail from states where a significant percentage of voters consider themselves cosmopolitan and sophisticated, and, to them, tolerance of minority groups is a demonstration of this. It's no coincidence that Minnesota, for example, which elected the late Paul Wellstone and Norm Coleman to the Senate (both Jews) also recently elected the first Muslim Congressman.

George Allen wasn't running for the Senate in Minnesota though -- he was running in Virginia, as an iconic white Southerner, and he was attempting to appeal to the antipathy among some rural whites to the increasing ethic diversity of VA, particularly in the state's Northeastern hi-tech and D.C. exurban areas. Hence his ill-fated "Macaca" crack that helped him lose the election. A different sort of politician could have used the "discovery" of his Jewish ancestry to his advantage, but not George Allen. The revelation that he was half-Jewish was devastating to his 'good old boy' political image, which is why he lamely responded to it by professing his love for ham sandwiches. Maybe by now his mother has explained the irony of that, with the whole history of why Sephardic Jews were called "marranos".

In any case, it's fitting that Allen was defeated by the real thing: the Scots-Irish Jim Webb. You can't try to out-Southern white a Scots-Irish American when your mother is a Sephardic Jew from North Africa.

tommy said...

The Zimmerman telegram was real, and I don't believe its authenticity has ever been called into serious question.

Correct, especially since Zimmerman, rather surprisingly, admitted that he had sent the telegram shortly after the matter went public. I'm sure there are a few conspiracy theorists out there who believe Zimmerman was in the employ of British intelligence.

SFG said...

Do you really not understand the difference? Jewish Senators may not hail from any Jewish-majority states, but they do tend to hail from states where a significant percentage of voters consider themselves cosmopolitan and sophisticated, and, to them, tolerance of minority groups is a demonstration of this.
On some level, yes. It does explain why affluent liberals are so eager to elect Obama. (Personally, I figure Hillary's going to have an easier time screwing men than Obama will screwing whites, because women are a majority and blacks are a minority, so I side with Obama if I have to pick a Democrat.)

I think, however, that those of us in the blue states are much more into 'resume candidates'. We like candidates who are intelligent and accomplished, and that obviously gives the Jews a leg up. We don't have problems with guys like Kerry who have four opinions for every issue, because we think things are complicated. As for Romney's flip-flopping, that's a sensible thing for a CEO to do; you don't 'hold fast to your principles' and continue with your plan to take out a loan to expand your business if the interest rates shoot up suddenly! 'Down-home folksy charm' reminds us of stupidity. We admire Bush Sr.'s Phi Beta Kappa at Yale and Clinton's going to Yale Law from the deep South, and look down on Bush Jr's cocaine and alcohol use.

I have to admire Bush Sr's WASPy restraint and civic dedication; the guy knew he had to raise taxes, and did, even though it cost him the election. He didn't overreach himself in Iraq, and slapped Saddam down without miring us in a stupid war.

The rest of the country doesn't think like us. But hey, whatever. If Southerners can have regional pride, so can we. ;)

I don't like Giuliani as president. He did a great job as mayor of NYC and I honor him for that. But the guy's got a hair-trigger temper and I don't trust him with the Bomb.

Anonymous said...

evil neocon wrote:
"Germany's tragedy was that for a variety of reasons it failed to unify as a nation state in the late Medieval Period, unlike England and France. "

That "variety of reasons" was France's and England's incessant meddling in the affairs of central Europe in order to prevent a unification of Germany and thus a new superpower. Read Kissinger's Diplomacy book covering the last 600 years in Europe, and you will understand that the great preventors of Germany's rise were France and England, both countries fearing being dominated by a more populous and culturally advanced Germany.

Horatio said...

The dearth of Asians can probably be explained by testosterone. High T should accompany high IQ for business leaders.

It would be interesting to see how genetically white the top 100 are. I am Hispanic and though I may never be a CEO, I would have to really screw up to not be earning 6 figures a few years after grad school. I am a castizo. Most Spaniards can't even tell I have Indian ancestry and Americans often think I'm part Asian rather than Indian. Successful Hispanics are usually whiter than me.

Audacious Epigone said...

Bill,

When I wrote the "Judaism is determined by birth," I wasn't trying to make a definitive statement on a debatable subject. I was simply saying that in compiling the table, I only counted as Jewish those who were born Jewish, whether or not they converted to/from it later in life.

Bill said...

Bill,

When I wrote the "Judaism is determined by birth," I wasn't trying to make a definitive statement on a debatable subject. I was simply saying that in compiling the table, I only counted as Jewish those who were born Jewish, whether or not they converted to/from it later in life.

-Audacious


I understand why you set it up this way, because this standard is widely propounded by interested parties (which makes it suspect in my view). However, if one category is determined by birth, and all the others by belief, then there is a fundamental inconsistency in the data set. For example, if you want to be consistent, Barack Obama should be counted as Muslim in your table, and GWB as Episcopalian.

Mark said...

It does explain why affluent liberals are so eager to elect Obama. (Personally, I figure Hillary's going to have an easier time screwing men than Obama will screwing whites, because women are a majority and blacks are a minority, so I side with Obama if I have to pick a Democrat.)

I think either candidate would do a great deal to discredit modern liberalism, which would be a nice way to offset the way non-conservative Bush has damaged a conservatism he doesnt even believe in.

Since we're always hearing about needing to elect women and blacks, it would be nice to see one of either fall flat on their face and put the argument out of its misery forever.

Hillary, given her known stubborness, will probably do more damage than Obama. Once elected, she will shun her husband's advice out of a desire to do it "her way." Obama is the candidate of the Bobos, and would embarass the snot out of them from his incompetence.

I have no desire to see either of them elected president, but increasingly it's something I can live with, if for entirely nefarious reasons.

Mark said...

Do you really not understand the difference? Jewish Senators may not hail from any Jewish-majority states, but they do tend to hail from states where a significant percentage of voters consider themselves cosmopolitan and sophisticated. - Fred

Ummmm, yeah - and George Allen, the half-Jew, went on to lose the race for Senate in Virginia by only 7,231 votes, out of 2.36 million cast, to a guy who was Reagan's Secretary of the Navy, a Vietnam Vet, a recipient of the Navy Cross (just below the Medal of Honor), and also a damn fine writer. Before I knew anything about Allen's Jewish heritage my thoughts toward Webb were "Damn, that's a hard resume to beat."

Allen ran a terrible campaign (remember Macaca?) in a bad year for Republicans, and he compounded his mistakes exponentially by bringing George W Bush in to campaign for him.

Oh, and he only lost by 7,231 votes.

Blue states don't vote for Jews because they feel a special glee voting for a (non-oppressed, highly overrepresented) minority. They vote for Jews because Jews tend to be liberals. Jews also do well in those states because they're good at raising money from their co-ethnics.

The first Jewish senator and House member in the country were from Florida. The first two Jewish governors in the country were from Idaho and Utah. We'll gladly vote for Jews or any other minority, when we feel the represent our views.

Virginia has sent Republican Eric Cantor, a Jew, to congress. Certainly Allen has heard of him.

Bill said...

I have no desire to see either of them elected president, but increasingly it's something I can live with, if for entirely nefarious reasons.

-Mark


Me too. Anyone who gets in next term is going to look bad. If it's gotta be Hillary, well, let her have it.

Audacious Epigone said...

Bill,

Jewish intelligence/prosperity is an infintely interesting subject. Notice how the Jewish representation in the chart mirrors that of Jewish representation among Nobel prize winners.

The difference between Dutch Reformed and Roman Catholic, though, by ancestry, doesn't generate all that much curiosity. If Mitt Romney had converted from Mormonism to Lutheranism decades ago, the Mormon thing would be less of an issue than would be his Jewish heritage (were he born into a Jewish family) if he converted similarly to a mainline Protestant denomination.